Authority: Calcutta High Court (Criminal Revisionary Jurisdiction, Appellate Side)
Order Date: 16‑Sep‑2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Petitioners – M/s Shree Radhey Kripa Concast India Private Ltd, M/s Lakshmi Metallurgy Ltd and their directors; Opposite Party – M/s Eastern Copper Manufacturing Co Private Limited.
- Nature of Proceeding: Criminal revision under Section 482 CrPC seeking quash of Case No. CN/1650 of 2022, originally cognizance of offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC arising from a commercial transaction in 2014.
- Background Facts:
- Between July‑August 2014, petitioners approached Eastern Copper’s Kolkata office, claiming nationwide operations and securing supply of “Copper Contact Pads including Fabrication Work”.
- Goods worth ₹23,00,064 were delivered from 20‑Aug‑2014 to 13‑Sep‑2014.
- Petitioners made an immediate part‑payment of ₹15,46,500 in September 2014 (over 65 % of invoice value).
- The balance of ₹8,36,627 remained unpaid; petitioners cited defective goods and travel‑expense disputes.
- No demand or legal notice was issued for more than six years; a demand notice was finally sent on 3‑Nov‑2020, and a criminal complaint was lodged in Sept 2022.
- The Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance and issued process on 5‑Nov‑2022 under Sections 406, 420, 120B IPC.
- Legal Submissions:
- Petitioners’ Counsel (Haradhan Banerjee): Emphasised the substantial part‑payment, arguing lack of dishonest intent at contract inception; cited Supreme Court judgments (Vijay Kumar Ghai (2022), Binod Kumar (2014), Naresh Kumar (2024)) that mere breach of contract without fraudulent intent does not constitute cheating.
- Opposite Party Counsel (Somopriyo Chowdhury): Asserted prima‑facie case of cheating and breach of trust; relied on precedents (Ravindra Kumar (2009), Vijender Kumar (2014), Mini Arora (2020)) that partial payment does not extinguish criminal liability.
- Statutory Analysis:
- Section 420 IPC requires dishonest or fraudulent intention ab initio; the court noted the 65 % payment negates such intent.
- Section 406 IPC requires entrustment of property; the transaction was a sale, not an entrustment, so criminal breach of trust is inapplicable.
- Six‑year delay rendered any civil claim time‑barred under the Limitation Act, 1963, indicating abuse of criminal process.
- Supreme Court pronouncements (Bhajan Lal (1992), Binod Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Sandeep Shukla (2026), Delhi Race Club (2024)) were cited to underscore that converting civil disputes into criminal prosecutions is impermissible.
Final Outcome
- The revision application is allowed; the order of cognizance and issuance of process dated 5‑Nov‑2022 is quashed and set aside.
- All further proceedings arising from that order are terminated.
- Interim orders, if any, are vacated; CRAN 4 of 2025 is disposed of; the Department is directed to reflect disposal in the list.
- No order as to costs.
- The judgment, along with trial court records, is to be transmitted to the trial court; case diary returned to counsel; urgent certified copy to be supplied upon compliance.
Topics: Court Procedure, Criminal Law, Commercial Dispute