Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: 12.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Adarsh Parasramka and Seema Trading Company (referred to as "petitioners").
  • Respondents: State of West Bengal (represented by Amarta Ghosh and Abhinav Rakshit).
  • Original criminal proceedings: GR (NS) Case No.218/24 arising from Bowbazar Police Station (PS) Case No.57/24 dated 12.04.2024, filed under Sections 120B, 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Sections 316 and 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
  • Background: A commercial agreement dated 24.09.2021 required the opposite party (Opposite Party No. 2) to supply industrial oil for eight months (23.07.2021 – 20.02.2022). Payments stopped from 21.02.2022, leading the petitioners to issue a legal notice on 04.01.2024 alleging inferior‑quality oil and claiming a loss of Rs 48,79,000/‑.
  • The State’s case diary alleges that the opposite party supplied oil, the petitioners stopped payments, and the opposite party claims a wrongful withholding of Rs 33,78,512/‑, invoking cheating and criminal breach of trust.
  • Petitioners contend the dispute is purely civil, that the alleged inferior quality was intentional, and that the FIR was lodged more than three months after the notice, constituting an abuse of process.
  • Legal precedents cited:
  • Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 3114 of 2024) – stating Sections 420 and 406 cannot co‑exist on the same facts.
  • Shailesh Kumar Singh alias Shailesh R. Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 4880/2025) – discussing oral agreements and prima facie cheating.
  • S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2025 INSC 917) – confirming that cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot be simultaneous unless facts constitute a “mixed bag”.
  • Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal (2023) – quashing FIRs where the dispute is essentially civil.
  • Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) – emphasizing the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash civil‑nature proceedings.
  • Bhajan Lal guidelines – outlining categories where quashing is justified.
  • The court analyzed Sections 316 (criminal breach of trust) and 318 (cheating) of the BNS, highlighting the requirement of mens rea for cheating and the absence of such intent in the present facts.
  • The court concluded that the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence, the dispute is essentially a breach of contract, and there is no criminal intent.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court allowed CRR 5075 of 2024, quashing the FIR and the criminal proceedings (GR (NS) Case No.218/24) against the petitioners.
  • All connected applications, if any, are disposed of.
  • Any interim orders stand vacated.
  • The judgment is to be sent to the learned Trial Court for compliance, and an urgent certified copy is to be supplied upon request.

Topics: Criminal Procedure, Commercial Contract Dispute