Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(HC) 12480
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J
Srivardhan Daga – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION | C.R.R. 2327 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Chanchal Kumar Dey, Mr. Diganta Sikdar
For the Respondents: Mr. Avishek Sinha
The court established that civil disputes should not be pursued through criminal proceedings, emphasizing the need for clear, criminally actionable misconduct.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420, 120B - Quashing of proceedings - Criminal proceedings initiated based on allegations of loan default - Allegations found to be civil in nature rather than of criminal offenses; hence, proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process. (Paras 11, 12, 13)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Misuse of criminal process - Court emphasizes that disputes of civil nature should be addressed in civil courts, not through criminal proceedings - Initiation of such proceedings amounts to harassment. (Paras 2, 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested a charge-sheet regarding loan repayment allegedly involving a conspiracy and cheating related to the loan of Rs. 9,90,000. The petitioner presented a substantial alibi against the timing of the allegations, suggesting a fabrication of claims.
Findings of Court:
The court deemed the allegations insufficient to constitute an offense under the cited sections of IPC, asserting the civil nature of disputes.
Issues: The key issue was whether the allegations constituted a criminal offense or merely a breach of civil agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations did not satisfy the ingredients for criminal breach of trust or cheating, maintaining that recourse to civil law was the appropriate channel.
Result: The criminal revisional application was allowed, quashing all proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis for the criminal allegations and proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on the validity and implications of the allegations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations addressing the nature of the allegations. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 4. critical assessment of the charges under ipc. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. (Para 12) |
1. The instant criminal revisional application is filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of proceedings being G.R. Case No. 3513 of 2012 pending before the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta arising out of Hare Street Police Station Case No. 671 of 2012 dated 10.09.2012 under Sections 406 /420/120B of the Indian Penal Code and all orders passed therein to the prejudice of the petitioner.
2. The instant criminal revisional application revealed the following facts:
i.The opposite party no. 2 in gross abuse and/or misuse of the process of criminal law filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 before the Court of Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta inter alia alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B /406/420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner herein.
ii. Pursuant to the direction of the Learned Magistrate to treat such application as the First Information Report, the instant case being Hare Street Police Station Case No. 671 of 2012 dated 10.09.2012 under Sections 120B /406/420 of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation.
iii. The allegations in the First Information Report were inter alia as follows:
“that the opposite party no. 2 was induced by the accused in the month of March, 2011 to provide a loan to the tune of Rs. 9,90,000 to him for his business expansion; that the accused had agreed to repay the said amount within 6 months with interest @ 8% per annum; that apropos the said agreement, the opposite party no. 2 handed over the said sum of Rs. 9,90,000 to the accused on 03.04.2011 at the office of his Learned Advocate, situated at 12/2 Old Post Office Street, Kolkata – 700001; that under instructions of the said learned advocate, a money receipt was prepared which was duly signed by the accused person; that in spite of the elapse of the period agreed upon, the accused person neither paid the principal amount nor the interest agreed upon; that the opposite party no. 2 made several efforts to contact the accused person but he failed to do so; that the opposite party no. 2 for about a period of 10 months kept on requesting the accused person but he did not respond to such requests; that it was clear that the petitioner had hatched a conspiracy against the opposite party no. 2 and has cheated him; that having no other alternative, the opposite party no. 2 lodged a written complaint with the Hare Street Police Station on 24.08.2012, but the same was of no avail.”
iv.Apprehending arrest, the petitioner preferred an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 before the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta and the same was numbered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 480 of 2012. By order dated 06.10.2012 the Learned Judge granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
v. Upon conclusion of a purported investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted a Charge-Sheet being Charge-Sheet No. 420/2012 dated 31.10.2012 under Sections 406 /420/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
vi. The said Charge-Sheet was filed before the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and by order dated 30.01.2013 the Learned Magistrate mechanically and without application of his judicial mind took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 406 /420/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
vii. The allegation that on 03.04.2011 the opposite party no. 2 namely, Sri Ashish Soni handed over a sum of Rs.9,90,000/- in cash to the petitioner at the office of his Learned Advocate and under instructions of the
