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

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.

Latest Legal News