Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Criminal Courts Should Not Be Used For Settling Commercial Disputes: Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings In Contractual Dispute Over Commission Payments

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against executives of Tata Metalliks D.I. Pipes Limited in a dispute involving allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and conspiracy under Sections 406, 418, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court emphasized that the disputes were essentially of a civil nature and not criminal offenses.

The dispute originated from a complaint by Mr. Amit Malviya, proprietor of M/s. Regent Techno, against several executives of Tata Metalliks, alleging non-payment of agreed commissions from marketing contracts. The complainant claimed that despite his efforts in securing substantial orders, the accused reneged on their commitments, leading to financial losses and resulting in the criminal charges.

Justice Bibhas Ranjan De meticulously assessed the legal points raised during the hearing. The court highlighted:

Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Disputes: The judge pointed out that mere non-payment or disputes over commission in business agreements does not necessarily amount to criminal offenses like cheating or breach of trust. The court noted, “The allegations primarily constitute a commercial transaction dispute…which ought to be adjudicated in a civil court.”

Absence of Criminal Intent: The court observed that there was no evidence of criminal intent or deception at the outset by the accused, which is crucial for establishing offenses under the relevant sections of IPC. “There is nothing on record to indicate that the accused had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of entering into the agreement,” the judgment read.

Misuse of Judicial Process: It was concluded that the criminal proceedings were misused to pressurize the accused for settlement, which was inappropriate. The court cited, “Criminal courts should not be used as grounds for recovery of alleged dues, which are essentially of a contractual nature.”

Decision Based on the observations and legal precedents, the court quashed all criminal proceedings against the petitioners, stating that the prosecution’s allegations failed to constitute the ingredients of the charged offenses. The ruling underlined the importance of distinguishing between civil disputes and criminal liability.

Date of Decision: May 3, 2024

Sanjiv Paul vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Similar News