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    |    

Disputes of Civil Nature Cannot Be Cloaked with Criminal Proceedings”: Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Charges in Business Contract Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Calcutta, in a significant judgment by Justice Bibhas Ranjan De, has quashed criminal proceedings against executives of Tata Metalliks D.I. Pipes Limited, ruling that disputes arising from business contracts involving allegations of cheating and breach of trust are fundamentally civil in nature and should not be construed as criminal offenses.

The judgment focused on the misuse of criminal proceedings in disputes that are essentially civil. The court emphasized that criminal courts should not intervene in matters predominantly civil in nature, such as the one at hand, which involved contractual disagreements over commission payments in government tender procurements.

The case revolved around a complaint filed by Mr. Amit Malviya, proprietor of M/s. Regent Techno, against the executives of Tata Metalliks for allegedly failing to honor commission payment agreements. Malviya claimed that after his firm helped Tata Metalliks secure large government orders, the company reneged on their commitments and terminated their agency agreement unilaterally, which prompted him to initiate criminal proceedings against them.

Quashing of Proceedings: The court found that the allegations were rooted in a contractual dispute that does not constitute criminal offenses. Justice De noted, “The proceedings are quashed as they are deemed an abuse of process and lacking in elements of criminal offences.”

Role of Accused: The court highlighted that there was insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of intentional cheating or trust breach against the Tata Metalliks executives, thereby rendering the criminal proceedings inappropriate.

Jurisdiction & Scope of Civil Dispute: The court reiterated that criminal justice systems should not be used to address pure contractual breaches, emphasizing the need to distinguish between civil breaches and criminal offences to prevent misuse of the criminal justice system.

Decision of the Court: The court decisively quashed the ongoing criminal proceedings, recognizing them as arising from civil disputes over contractual obligations and commissions, which do not amount to criminal offenses. “The dispute over commission payments and termination of agency falls within the purview of civil adjudication rather than criminal prosecution,” Justice De concluded.

Date of Decision: April 29, 2024

Sanjiv Paul vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Similar News