IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

CRR 2577 of 2018

Harish Bagla & Ors.

-Vs-

State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Mayuk Mukherjee

Mr. Anurag Modi

Mr. S.N. Upadhyay Ms. Ankita Sikdar

Ms. Jaita Ghosh

For the State : Mr. Ranabir Roychowdhury

Mr. Mainak Gupta

Hearing concluded on : 07.11.2025 Judgment on : 05.12.2025

UDAY KUMAR, J.: –

1. This Criminal Revision Application, bearing CRR No. 2577 of 2018, is

preferred by the Petitioners, namely Harish Bagla, Archana Bagla, and Anurag Kedia, invoking the inherent and extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The Petitioners seek to exercise this Court's salutary power to secure the ends of justice by quashing the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Bowbazar Police Station Case No. 176/17 dated June 9, 2017 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 630 of 2017), registered primarily under Sections 120B, 406, and

420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. The foundational premise of the Petitioners' prayer is that the genesis of the dispute lies purely in a commercial transaction, which has been substantially settled between the parties, and that the continued prosecution is nothing but a glaring instance of the abuse of the process of law.

3. The essence of the prosecution’s case, as discernible from the First Information Report (FIR), relates to a commercial transaction involving the supply of maize goods. The Complainant alleges a willful default and non- payment of outstanding dues amounting to ₹ 49,31,236/- by the purchasing entities, which are Petitioners' companies. The Complainant sought to imbue this contractual default with a criminal colour by asserting that the goods were supplied based on "false assurances" and an implied "complete faith and trust," which the Petitioners subsequently breached, thereby characterizing the non-payment as a premeditated act of cheating and criminal conspiracy.

4. The Petitioners have consistently contended, both before the Learned Magistrate and before this Court, that the non-payment is merely a long- standing, disputed commercial debt spanning the period from October 2012 to October 2015. They submit that the criminal machinery has been wrongfully and vexatiously invoked solely as an "arm-twisting technique" to recover money, asserting unequivocally that the matter is fundamentally a civil dispute pertaining to outstanding commercial liabilities.

5. Crucially, during the pendency of this Revisional Application, the Petitioners demonstrated unassailable bona fides by paying the undisputed portion of the liability amounting to ₹ 9,77,691/-, owed by M/s. Amrit Hatcheries (P) Ltd. to the Complainant. Consequent upon this significant payment, the Opposite Party No. 2 (Complainant) formally filed a solemn affidavit/application before the Learned Magistrate, explicitly stating that they were "not interested in proceeding with the instant case" against the accused persons. This singular act brings the criminal complaint to an effective, albeit extra-judicial, cessation.

6. The singular and determinative question of law and fact confronting this Court is:

“Whether, in the factual context of a commercial dispute where the outstanding financial liability has been substantially mitigated/settled and the de facto Complainant has formally and unequivocally abandoned their interest in pursuing the prosecution, the continuation of the criminal proceedings amounts to a flagrant and unjustifiable abuse of the process of law, warranting its immediate quashing under the inherent power conferred by Section

482 Cr.P.C.”

6. Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted with considerable force that the proceedings must be quashed ex debito justitiae as the dispute is, in its very essence, purely civil in nature, and the criminal process was illegally activated merely for money recovery—a practice consi