1. Petition to quash criminal proceeding for cheating, criminal intimidation, assault, and criminal force arising from an interior decoration contract dispute. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Cal) 604
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.
Sanjib Dey @ Sanjib Kumar Dey & Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr. - Respondent
CRR 2771 of 2025, CRAN 2 of 2025, CRAN 5 of 2026
Decided On : 03-09-2026
Important Points
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for a purely civil contractual dispute unless fraudulent intention is proven from the inception. Vague allegations of threats or verbal altercations during commercial disputes do not satisfy the legal ingredients of criminal intimidation or outraging modesty.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashment of Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) - Sections 318(4), 316(2), 351(2), and 74 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Section 528 - Quashment of criminal proceedings - Dispute over interior decoration project - Allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation, and outraging modesty - Absence of fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction - Dispute is purely civil and contractual in nature - No entrustment of property in fiduciary capacity - Vague allegations of threats and verbal altercations do not constitute criminal intimidation or assault with intent to outrage modesty - Criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil disputes or pressurize parties. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21)
(B) Criminal Breach of Trust vs. Cheating - If a case is framed as criminal breach of trust, it cannot simultaneously be framed as cheating for the same act. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners engaged a contractor for a home interior project. While the contractor claimed a revised estimate and outstanding payment of Rs. 15,42,928/-, the petitioners asserted that they paid Rs. 23,40,000/- against an agreed budget of Rs. 25,00,000/- and that the work remained incomplete. The contractor filed a criminal case alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation, and assault to outrage modesty.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the complaint did not disclose any fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction, which is essential for cheating. There was no entrustment of property in a fiduciary capacity to sustain a charge of criminal breach of trust. The allegations of intimidation and outraging modesty were vague and stemmed from a commercial dispute.
Issues: Whether the dispute over payment and completion of an interior decoration project constitutes cognizable criminal offences under the BNS or is a purely civil contractual dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: A mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless dishonest intention is shown from the beginning. In the absence of fiduciary entrustment, criminal breach of trust is not applicable. Vague threats during commercial disputes do not amount to criminal intimidation, and verbal altercations without overt acts of assault do not constitute outraging modesty.
Result: CRR 2771 of 2025 is allowed; the impugned proceeding being GR Case no. 4367 of 2025 is quashed.
(B) Criminal Breach of Trust vs. Cheating - If a case is framed as criminal breach of trust, it cannot simultaneously be framed as cheating for the same act. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners engaged a contractor for a home interior project. While the contractor claimed a revised estimate and outstanding payment of Rs. 15,42,928/-, the petitioners asserted that they paid Rs. 23,40,000/- against an agreed budget of Rs. 25,00,000/- and that the work remained incomplete. The contractor filed a criminal case alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation, and assault to outrage modesty.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the complaint did not disclose any fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction, which is essential for cheating. There was no entrustment of property in a fiduciary capacity to sustain a charge of criminal breach of trust. The allegations of intimidation and outraging modesty were vague and stemmed from a commercial dispute.
Issues: Whether the dispute over payment and completion of an interior decoration project constitutes cognizable criminal offences under the BNS or is a purely civil contractual dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: A mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless dishonest intention is shown from the beginning. In the absence of fiduciary entrustment, criminal breach of trust is not applicable. Vague threats during commercial disputes do not amount to criminal intimidation, and verbal altercations without overt acts of assault do not constitute outraging modesty.
Result: CRR 2771 of 2025 is allowed; the impugned proceeding being GR Case no. 4367 of 2025 is quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Navanil De, Mr. Rajeshwar Chakraborty, Mr. Srinjan Ghosh, Ms. Monami Mukherjee, Mr. Shoumilya Majumder
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Halder, Mr. Debabrata Halder, Ms. Pritha Chatterjee
For the State : Mr. Kallol Mondal Ld. APP, Mr. Imran Siddiqui
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Navanil De, Mr. Rajeshwar Chakraborty, Mr. Srinjan Ghosh, Ms. Monami Mukherjee, Mr. Shoumilya Majumder
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Halder, Mr. Debabrata Halder, Ms. Pritha Chatterjee
For the State : Mr. Kallol Mondal Ld. APP, Mr. Imran Siddiqui
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argue dispute is civil; complainant contends allegations of deception, inducement, threats, and partial payments disclose criminal offences. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Dispute is contractual; no fraudulent intention at inception, no entrustment for criminal breach of trust, and vague threats do not constitute criminal intimidation. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. A mere breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction. (Para 20 , 21 )
5. Criminal proceeding quashed as an abuse of the process of court, exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 )
6. What is the essential element for the offence of cheating under BNS?
A fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction is the sine qua non for constituting the offence of cheating. (Para 13 , 14 , 20 )
7. Does part payment or partial performance automatically negate criminality in a cheating case?
No, part payment does not automatically erase criminality, especially if payments were made strategically to induce the complainant to act to their detriment. (Para 9 )
8. What is required to establish the offence of criminal intimidation under BNS?
A specific, real, and credible threat intended to cause alarm or compel the complainant to do or omit an act, not vague threats or heated exchanges from a contractual dispute. (Para 16 , 17 )
9. What is the essential ingredient for the offence of criminal breach of trust under BNS?
Entrustment of property or dominion over property is the essential ingredient, which is absent in a contractual dispute over services and materials. (Para 15 )
10. Can a dispute arising from a contract be considered an offence of assault or use of criminal force to outrage modesty under BNS?
No, a verbal altercation arising from a commercial dispute, without a clear allegation of assault or use of criminal force with the requisite intent, does not constitute such an offence. (Para 18 , 19 )
JUDGMENT :
Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
1. The instant revisional application has been preferred seeking quashment of the criminal proceeding arising out of Sonarpur P.S. Case No. 874 of 2025 under section 318 (4)/316 (2)/351(2) /74 of the BNS corresponding to GR Case no. 4367 of 2025, presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Baruipur.
2. The allegations that gave rise to the said criminal proceeding, in short, is that in October, 2024 , petitioner 2 engaged OP no.2 and her husband for a Home Interior Project, which was initially estimated at Rs. 23, 49, 033/-. It is alleged at the instance of the petitioner no.3, the work was undertaken on credit without any advance payment. During execution, the scope of work was allegedly expanded resulting in revised estimates of Rs. 29,17,274/- and finally Rs. 38,91,961/-. Although payments aggregating Rs. 23,40,000/- were made, it is alleged that a sum of Rs. 15,42,928/- remained outstanding. It is alleged that the petitioners cheated the OP no.2 of Rs. 15,42,928/-, inducing the OP to spend money and resources to the unlawful benefit of the petitioner. It is further alleged that petitioner no.2 abused and assaulted OP no.2 and that the petitioners humiliated her during the housewarming ceremony on May 12, 2025 and thereafter ceased communication and that petitioner no.3 criminally intimidated her by referring political and criminal connections, and that the petitioners had intended to cheat her from the very inception.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is a government servant having unblemished service record, and petitioner no.2 is an engineer and petitioner no.3 is a practicing advocate who are the sons of petitioner no.1. He submits that the petitioners after purchasing a flat came in contact with OP no.2 and her husband for undertaking the Interior Decoration and during discussion, it was held that the initial budget was Rs. 15,00,000/- excluding electronic appliances. Upon their assurance, the parties ultimately agreed upon an all-inclusive budget of approximately 25,00,000/- covering the entire interior work with the delivery of the fully completed flat by 31st March, 2025.
4. It is alleged by the petitioner that despite repeated request by petitioner no.3, OP no.2 and her husband refused to execute a written agreement citing tax-related issues. However, relying on their representation, the petitioner no.3 paid an initial sum of Rs. 5 lakhs by cheque on 1st November, 2024, whereupon the work commenced on 5th November, 2024. Thereafter petitioner no. 3 paid a further sum of Rs. 18,40,000/- aggregating Rs. 23, 40,000/-, which has been admitted in the FIR, itself against the agreed consideration of Rs. 25 lakhs
5. It is further alleged by the petitioners that despite receiving Rs. 23, 40,000/-, OP no.2 and her husband failed to complete the work by the agreed deadline of 31st March, 2025 or even before the scheduled housewarming ceremony on 12th May 2025, leaving several agreed items incomplete, missing or substandard. It is further alleged that when petitioner No.3 sought completion of the pending work after taking the balance amount of RS. 1,60,000/-, OP No.2 and her husband instead of fulfilling their obligations, demanded an additional sum of Rs. 12 Lakhs and threatened petitioner no.1 with dire consequences in case of non-payment.
6. Mr. Dey learned counsel for the petitioner therefore argued that the impugned criminal proceeding is a gross abuse of the process of law as the allegation contained in the FIR even if taken at their face value do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. The dispute is purely civil and contractual in nature, arising out of alleged disagreements regarding the scope of work and payment under an oral agreement for interior decoration. The petitioners had no fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction which
