Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court

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