MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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

Latest Legal News