Absence of Prima Facie Criminal Intent, Continuation of Proceedings Would Constitute an Abuse of Process of Law: Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Charges in Electricity Supply Dispute
In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Mr. Debapratim Neogie in a dispute over a sub-lease agreement and electricity supply. Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) observed, “In the absence of prima facie criminal intent or fraudulent inducement at inception of agreement, continuation of proceedings would constitute an abuse of process of law.”
Brief on Legal Point:
The court assessed the applicability of Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC in a commercial dispute involving alleged failure to provide promised electricity supply under a sub-lease agreement. It differentiated between civil disputes and criminal fraud, emphasizing that allegations lacking prima facie criminal intent should not be adjudicated through criminal proceedings.
Facts and Issues:
The case revolved around Mr. Neogie and Reliance Corporate IT Park Limited entering into a sub-lease agreement promising uninterrupted electricity supply.
Allegations of fraud and criminal intent to deceive by Mr. Neogie were brought up following disconnection of electricity and additional financial demands.
Court’s Assessment:
Civil Nature of Dispute: The court noted that the allegations mainly pertained to contractual obligations and financial transactions, lacking prima facie evidence of criminal intent.
Arbitrability of Dispute: Emphasizing the presence of an arbitration clause, the court suggested the suitability of arbitration over criminal proceedings for this dispute.
Legal Precedents on Non-arbitrability: The judgment referenced Supreme Court decisions on the non-arbitrability of disputes involving serious allegations of fraud. However, the court found the current allegations related more to internal affairs and thus suitable for arbitration.
Vicarious Liability and Corporate Criminal Liability: The court examined precedents on the liability of directors and the need for specific allegations with criminal intent.
Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, quashing the proceedings against Mr. Neogie. It held that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the legal process, given the absence of clear criminal intent or fraudulent inducement at the inception of the agreement.
Date of Decision: April 1, 2024
Mr. Debapratim Neogie Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.
