IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

CRR 3078 of 2022

Samar Seth

-Vs-

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Aritra Bhattacharya

For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Abhra Mukherjee

Mr. Sauradeep Dutta

Mr. A. Mukherjee

For the State : Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Ld. APP

Mr. Manoranjan Mahata

Hearing concluded on : 14.11.2025 Judgment on : 05.12.2025

UDAY KUMAR, J.: –

1. The present Revisional Application, filed by the Petitioner, Samar Seth,

invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Court conferred by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). He seeks to quash the entire criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 581 of 2021, arising out of Arsha Police Station Case No. 45/2021, currently pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia. The impugned proceedings culminated in a Charge Sheet under Sections 417/406/420/506 of the Indian Penal Code

(IPC).

2. The prosecution's case is rooted in a financial transaction held in 2007,

wherein the Petitioner’s deceased father, late Ghaltu Ram Seth, took a cash

loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the Sirkabad Mohashasan Ashram against an unregistered agreement. A contractual stipulation purportedly made the Petitioner (Samar Seth) vicariously liable for the repayment of the debt upon his father's demise. The criminal action was initiated in 2020, following the Petitioner's alleged refusal to repay the outstanding debt. The essence of the dispute, therefore, pertains to a private contractual arrangement concerning a debt.

3. Upon careful consideration on the material placed on record and the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, the solitary question that arises for this Court’s determination is:

"Whether the allegations contained in the First Information Report (FIR) and the subsequent Charge Sheet, primarily resting on the Petitioner's subsequent refusal to honour a contractual and vicarious liability (a debt guarantee), satisfy the essential ingredients of the criminal offences charged (Sections 417/406/420/506 IPC), or whether the continuation of these proceedings constitutes a gross abuse of the process of the Court by attempting to enforce a purely civil liability through the mechanism of criminal law."

4. Mr. Aritra Bhattacharya, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, assisted by Mr.

Abhra Mukherjee, Mr. Subhradeep Dutta, and Mr. A. Mukherjee, contended that the prosecution is a palpable abuse of the process of law, designed merely as a mechanism for debt recovery. He submitted that the foundational requirement for charges under Sections 417/420 IPC (Cheating) is destroyed by the absence of the requisite dishonest intention (mens rea) ab initio, given the substantial thirteen-year gap between the loan being advanced and the alleged default. He relied upon the ratio of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar in support of his contentions. Similarly, he argued that the charge under Section 406 IPC (Criminal Breach of Trust) fails as the loan transaction inherently creates a debtor-creditor relationship, not one of entrustment, and the funds were never entrusted to the Petitioner himself. He cited Sardul Singh v. State of Haryanain support of this. The Learned Counsel further concluded that the proceedings ought to be quashed under the well-

established guidelines enunciated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

5. Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties, assisted by Mr. Manoranjan Mahata, countered that the Petitioner's wilful refusal in 2020, in breach of his written undertaking, coupled with the alleged threats, demonstrates a sufficient criminal intent for trial. He submitted that the veracity of the dishonest intent and the severity of the alleged intimidation (Section 506 IPC) are matters of evidence that must be tested during trial and cannot be prematurely negated by this Court in its limited jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. This Cou