Disputes of Civil Nature Cannot Be Cloaked with Criminal Proceedings”: Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Charges in Business Contract Dispute

Share:
Teacher’ personal College Passport land criminal relationship Married 13Business 8 Property NI Act income written Law investigation contract municipal evidence money written loving divorce evidence motor loving medicalsuicide prima nature factor truck investigation dealing proof Calcutta High Court land pocso landmark

The High Court of Calcutta, in a significant judgment by Justice Bibhas Ranjan De, has quashed criminal proceedings against executives of Tata Metalliks D.I. Pipes Limited, ruling that disputes arising from business contracts involving allegations of cheating and breach of trust are fundamentally civil in nature and should not be construed as criminal offenses.

Legal Point of the Judgment:

The judgment focused on the misuse of criminal proceedings in disputes that are essentially civil. The court emphasized that criminal courts should not intervene in matters predominantly civil in nature, such as the one at hand, which involved contractual disagreements over commission payments in government tender procurements.

Facts and Issues of the Case:

The case revolved around a complaint filed by Mr. Amit Malviya, proprietor of M/s. Regent Techno, against the executives of Tata Metalliks for allegedly failing to honor commission payment agreements. Malviya claimed that after his firm helped Tata Metalliks secure large government orders, the company reneged on their commitments and terminated their agency agreement unilaterally, which prompted him to initiate criminal proceedings against them.

Detailed Court Assessment:

Quashing of Proceedings: The court found that the allegations were rooted in a contractual dispute that does not constitute criminal offenses. Justice De noted, “The proceedings are quashed as they are deemed an abuse of process and lacking in elements of criminal offences.”

Role of Accused: The court highlighted that there was insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of intentional cheating or trust breach against the Tata Metalliks executives, thereby rendering the criminal proceedings inappropriate.

Jurisdiction & Scope of Civil Dispute: The court reiterated that criminal justice systems should not be used to address pure contractual breaches, emphasizing the need to distinguish between civil breaches and criminal offences to prevent misuse of the criminal justice system.

Decision of the Court: The court decisively quashed the ongoing criminal proceedings, recognizing them as arising from civil disputes over contractual obligations and commissions, which do not amount to criminal offenses. “The dispute over commission payments and termination of agency falls within the purview of civil adjudication rather than criminal prosecution,” Justice De concluded.

Date of Decision: April 29, 2024

Sanjiv Paul vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Download Judgment

Share: