Authority: Calcutta High Court

Order Date: 07 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners Gaurav Upadhyay & Anr. versus State of West Bengal & Anr.
  • Proceeding: Revision (CRR 454 of 2020) seeking quash of criminal case G.R. Case No. 2693 of 2017 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman, arising from Jamuria Police Station Case No. 331 of 2017 under Section 420 IPC.
  • Background: The dispute stems from alleged non‑payment of Rs. 3,30,024 by Eastern Minerals Trading Agency (EMTA) to the complainant R.M. Transport for coal transportation at Tara East‑West Coal Mine. The joint‑venture company Bengal EMTA Coal Mines Ltd. (BECML) – a partnership of West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd., Durgapur Projects Ltd., and EMTA Coal Ltd. – was the actual commercial entity responsible for payments.
  • Directors & Management: Directors of BECML listed as Bikash Mukherjee, Ujjal Kumar Upadhyay, Gaurav Bagaria; Directors of EMTA Coal Ltd. listed as Nitai Mishra, Gaurav Bagaria, Gaurav Upadhyay, Aditya Keshri, Ambika Kumari, Arpita Dey (Company Secretary). Petitioners asserted they were neither directors of BECML nor had any active control over its affairs.
  • Allegations: The complainant alleged that the petitioners, as directors of EMTA Coal Ltd., failed to settle the invoice, leading to a criminal complaint under Section 420 IPC. Multiple FIRs were filed (Jamuria PS Cases 301/2017 through 331/2017 and 406/2019, 407/2019, 445/2019). A charge‑sheet (No. 199/2019 dated 30‑06‑2019) was submitted against Ujjal Kumar Upadhyay, Gourav Upadhyay, Saugata Upadhyay, Biswanath Dutta, among others, alleging absconding.
  • Legal Precedents Cited: Supreme Court judgment in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary (Writ Petition (CRL) 120 of 2012) dated 25‑08‑2014 and 24‑09‑2014 cancelling 204 coal blocks, including Tara East‑West. Subsequent enactment of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 and Rules 2014, which forced BECML to cease commercial activity and resulted in revenue stoppage.
  • Key Arguments: Petitioners contended the matter was civil, not criminal; there was no mens rea for cheating; the joint‑venture, not the individual directors, bore liability; part payments had been made; the delay in filing the FIR (complaint lodged on 13‑11‑2017 for alleged 2015 dues) undermined the criminal narrative; multiple parallel proceedings violated law; similar cases (CRR No. 4999 of 2023, G.R. Case No. 1742 of 2022) had been quashed by this Court.
  • Judicial Reasoning: The Court emphasized that vicarious liability does not arise absent statutory provision; the essential ingredients of Section 420 – deception at the inception and dishonest intent – were absent; non‑payment due to cancellation of coal blocks and consequent financial distress could not be equated with cheating; the criminal process was being misused to settle a civil dispute.

Final Outcome

  • The Calcutta High Court quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC against the petitioners, holding that the case was a civil dispute and that there was no basis for criminal liability.
  • The order directed that an urgent certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties.

Topics: Criminal Law, Coal Mining