Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" 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 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 No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

FIR Does Not Disclose Any Cognizable Offence Under The Specified IPC Sections – Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings In Cancelled Marriage Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling on May 10, 2024, the Calcutta High Court allowed a criminal revision application, resulting in the quashing of proceedings related to allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust in a case concerning a cancelled marriage arrangement. Justice Bibhas Ranjan De presided over the matter in the Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

The revision application was sought under Sections 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 406 (Criminal breach of trust), and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case arose from a complaint filed by the father of a bride-to-be after a marriage arrangement was abruptly cancelled, leading to financial losses and emotional distress.

On December 30, 2014, a complaint was lodged against the petitioners, alleging that after preparing extensively for an upcoming marriage, which included significant expenses and arrangements, the petitioners unilaterally cancelled the marriage. This cancellation purportedly resulted in a loss of ₹1,45,000 to the complainant, prompting the initiation of legal proceedings.

The High Court’s thorough analysis hinged on several key legal interpretations:

The court delineated the requirements for an act to qualify as cheating under IPC, emphasizing that the allegations must meet the stringent criteria of inducing delivery of property, which was not met in this case.

Justice De pointed out that the FIR and charges filed under these sections did not substantiate the elements of cheating or criminal breach of trust, as there was no inducement or entrustment of property proven.

Non-Cognizable Offences and Procedural Improprieties (Section 155(2) Cr.P.C):

It was noted that the police initiated an investigation into a non-cognizable offence without a magistrate’s order, further complicating the legality of the proceedings.

Decision: The High Court concluded that the FIR and subsequent charges did not disclose any cognizable offence and quashed the criminal proceedings under the contested IPC sections. The court directed that the case diary be returned and disposed of all connected applications accordingly.

Date of Decision: May 10, 2024

Keya Talukdar & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Latest Legal News