District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

Without Company and Persons Responsible for Day-to-Day Affairs, Prosecution of Petitioner Alone Clearly an Abuse of Process of Law: Calcutta High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a company director in a cheating case, citing the absence of charges against the company and its responsible individuals.

Legal Point: The judgment focuses on the distinction between corporate and individual criminal liability, particularly in cases of alleged cheating under IPC sections 420, 120B, and 34. The Court emphasized the necessity of implicating the company or its responsible individuals in cases involving corporate affairs.

Facts and Issues: The case, CRR 1826 of 2019, involves Gopal Sanei, a director of Sanei Motors, accused of cheating in a vehicle sale. The complainant alleged non-refund of advance payment after cancelling the vehicle agreement. The company, however, was not made a party in the proceedings.

Justice Shampa Dutt cited various Supreme Court judgments to distinguish civil wrongs from criminal offences. She noted that for criminal liability under Section 420 IPC, there must be evidence of fraudulent or dishonest inducement. The Court observed:

"In Lalit Chaturvedi & Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., the Supreme Court emphasized that the mere breach of contract or non-payment doesn't constitute a criminal offence under IPC Sections 420 and 406."

Regarding corporate criminal liability, the judgment relied on Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation, clarifying that without sufficient evidence of a director's active role and criminal intent, their prosecution is unsustainable.

Decision: The Court quashed the proceedings against all accused, including Gopal Sanei, holding the prosecution of the petitioner alone as an abuse of the legal process. The judgment states, "Without the Company and the persons responsible for the day to day affairs of the Company, the prosecution of the petitioner alone... is bad in law."

Date of Decision: April 5, 2024

Gopal Sanei @ Gopal Kumar Sanei Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Latest Legal News