Summons Can Be Issued to Dealers Post Deemed Assessment: Madras High Court Clarifies Scope Under TNVAT Act Delhi State Consumer Commission Dismisses DDA’s Appeal: "Sufficient Cause" Not Established for Delay in Filing Impartiality is Paramount' as It Voids Biased Arbitrator Appointment: MP High Court Enmity is a Double-Edged Weapon: High Court Acquits Jog Singh in 1986 Murder Case Criminal and Departmental Proceedings Can Proceed Simultaneously, Rules P&H High Court: 'Approach and Objective are Distinct and Different Court Cannot Legislate: High Court Upholds Employee Insurance Delay Rejection Acquittals Should Be Challenged Only with 'Compelling and Substantial Reasons': Rajasthan High Court Enquiry Commission’s Term May End, But Existence Can Be Revived by Government: P&H High Court Show Cause Notice Cannot Be Challenged Prematurely; Section 68 Proceedings Aim to Strengthen Co-operative Bank: Kerala High Court Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Against Businessman: A Case of Abuse of Legal Process Delhi High Court Upholds Creditor's Right to Execute 20-Year-Old Decree Despite Winding-Up Proceedings Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Framed as Harassment: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Over Workplace Allegations Trade Mark | Even Across Different Product Classes, the Well-Known LEGO Trademark Warrants Protection from Misleading Use: Madras High Court Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Required in Corrupt Practice Allegations: Kerala High Court Dismisses Election Petition on Excessive Campaign Expenditure Fees Should Be Proportionate to the Number of Locations Handed Over: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Restrains Patanjali from Advertising Coronil as COVID-19 Cure, Cites “Potential Public Health Risks

Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Against Businessman: A Case of Abuse of Legal Process

25 December 2024 6:42 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


In a recent judgment, the Calcutta High Court quashed a criminal complaint against a prominent businessman, emphasizing that the allegations did not constitute criminal offenses and amounted to an abuse of the legal process. The Court, while invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), reiterated that criminal law cannot be used as a tool for harassment in disputes that are fundamentally civil or commercial in nature.

The complaint had accused the businessman of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). According to the complainant, the businessman failed to fulfill obligations under a commercial agreement, resulting in alleged financial losses. However, the businessman argued that the dispute was purely contractual and civil in nature, and the criminal proceedings were instituted as a coercive measure to exert pressure.

The Court delved into the nature of the allegations and concluded that the complaint did not disclose any criminal intent at the time of the agreement's inception. Highlighting the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offenses, the Court observed, “A breach of contract, without more, does not constitute an offense of cheating unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent at the very inception of the contract. The criminal law cannot be invoked for mere failure to perform a contractual obligation.”

The judgment relied heavily on the principle that criminal law should not serve as a substitute for civil remedies. The Court emphasized that “the justice system cannot be misused to achieve ulterior motives or harass individuals through baseless accusations. Such misuse of the legal framework not only causes harm to the accused but also erodes public confidence in the judiciary.”

The Court further remarked that even if the allegations were assumed to be true, they did not make out a case of criminal breach of trust or cheating. The Court stated, “The materials on record do not indicate dishonest intention or misrepresentation at any stage. Without these essential elements, the offense under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot be established.”

In quashing the proceedings, the Court underscored the need for judicial intervention to prevent the misuse of legal processes. The Court held, “The continuation of proceedings in such cases, where no prima facie evidence exists, would be an exercise in futility and a waste of judicial resources. The inherent powers of the Court are rightly exercised to prevent injustice and protect the sanctity of the legal process.”

This decision serves as a crucial reminder that while contractual disputes may lead to financial loss or inconvenience, they do not automatically translate into criminal liability. The Court’s ruling reinforces the boundaries of criminal law, ensuring that it is not weaponized for personal or commercial gains.

By quashing the complaint, the Calcutta High Court not only upheld the rights of the accused but also reaffirmed the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the proper scope of criminal jurisprudence. This judgment adds to the growing body of law that seeks to curb the misuse of criminal proceedings in matters that are primarily civil in nature.
 

Date of Decision: 28 November 2024

Similar News