State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court After Admitting Lease, Defendant Cannot Turn Around and Call It Forged—Contradictory Stand at Advanced Trial Stage Impermissible: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Amendment Plea Dismissed Employee Has No Right to Leave Encashment Under Statutory Rules: Punjab and Haryana High Court Section 13 of Gambling Act Is Cognizable — Magistrate Can Take Cognizance on Police Report: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Surveyor’s Report Not Sacrosanct, Arbitral Tribunal Has Jurisdiction to Apply Mind Independently: Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurer’s Challenge to Award in Fire Damage Dispute Auction Purchaser Has No Vested Right Without Sale Confirmation: Calcutta HC Upholds Borrower’s Redemption Right Under Pre-Amendment SARFAESI Law Mere Breach of Promise to Marry Doesn’t Amount to Rape: Delhi High Court Acquits Man in False Rape Case Father Is the Natural Guardian After Mother’s Death, Mere Technicalities Cannot Override Welfare of Child: Orissa High Court Restores Custody to Biological Father Assets of Wife and Father-in-Law Can Be Considered in Disproportionate Assets Case Against Public Servant: Kerala High Court Refuses Discharge

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