Authority: High Court at Calcutta (Hon'ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay)

Order Date: 12.11.2026

Case Overview

  • Petition: Sandip Jatia (Managing Director of French Motor Car Company Limited) filed revision CRR 200 of 2015 seeking quash of criminal proceeding GR Case No. 4419 of 2013.
  • Respondent: State of West Bengal & Anr.
  • Original FIR: Asansol (South) Police Station case No. 422 of 2013, dated 21.10.2013, under IPC sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468 and 120B.
  • Allegations: Complainant, a transport‑business operator, purchased two Tata LP chassis (claimed 2013 model, actually 2011) for Rs 2,18,644 each, entered hire‑purchase agreements, paid Rs 1,00,000 upfront and Rs 1,25,000 monthly instalments. He alleged non‑supply of accessories, poor performance, and that he was induced to pay a price higher than appropriate for 2011 chassis.
  • Petitioner's version: Admitted sale of 2011 chassis in 2013 with a discount of Rs 7,00,000 total; claimed complainant knowingly accepted the discount, that a refund of Rs 95,000 for missing tyres was paid (cheque No. 875715 dated 16.08.2013), and denied any dishonest intent or misrepresentation.
  • Arguments: Petitioner contended no specific role was ascribed to him in the charge‑sheet; vicarious liability does not arise merely from being Managing Director; cited Supreme Court precedents (Bhajan Lal, S.K. Alagh, Sunil Bharti Mittal) emphasizing need for direct participation and dishonest intent.
  • State's position: Sought continuation of trial, asserting sufficient material against petitioner.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the prosecution against Sandip Jatia was founded solely on his position as Managing Director and on general allegations without specific material linking him personally to the alleged offences.
  • Citing the principles from Bhajan Lal and subsequent cases, the Court concluded that the essential ingredients of the offences were not disclosed against the petitioner.
  • Accordingly, the criminal proceeding against the petitioner under the cited IPC sections is quashed as unsustainable in law.
  • The proceedings against the other accused persons are not affected and may continue.
  • The Court directed that an urgent certified copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities.

Topics: Criminal Law, Corporate Governance