Gaurav Upadhyay Criminal Case Quashed by Calcutta HC

Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: 07.07.2026

Case Overview

• Parties: Petitioners – Gaurav Upadhyay & Anr.; Respondents – State of West Bengal & Anr.
• Proceeding Quashed: G.R. Case No. 2608 of 2019 pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman, arising from Jamuria Police Station Case No. 407 of 2019 under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
• Background: The dispute stemmed from alleged non‑payment of invoices amounting to Rs 38,12,606/- by Eastern Minerals Trading Agency (EMTA) for coal‑transport services at Tara East‑West Coal Mine. The complainant, Jagannath Ruidas (proprietor of R.B.P. Enterprise), filed a criminal complaint on 09.11.2019 alleging cheating by several directors and officers of Bengal EMTA Coal Mines Ltd.
• Corporate Structure: Bengal EMTA Coal Mines Ltd (BECML) is a joint‑venture of West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd, Durgapur Projects Ltd, and EMTA Coal Ltd (formerly Eastern Minerals and Trading Agency). The Chairman is the Secretary of the Department of Power; the Board includes nominees from the three parent entities, a District Magistrate, the MLA of Jamuria, and EMTA Coal Ltd nominees.
• Directors Listed: For BECML – Bikash Mukherjee, Ujjal Kumar Upadhyay, Gaurav Bagaria. For EMTA Coal Ltd – Nitai Mishra, Gaurav Bagaria, Gaurav Upadhyay, Aditya Keshri, Ambika Kumari, Arpita Dey (Company Secretary).
• Petitioners’ Position: The petitioners (including Gaurav Upadhyay) assert they were never directors of BECML and had no active control over its affairs; therefore, they cannot be held vicariously liable.
• Legal Precedent: The Supreme Court’s judgment in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary & Others (Writ Petition (CRL) 120 of 2012) dated 25.08.2014 and 24.09.2014 cancelled 204 coal blocks, including Tara East‑West Mine, leading to the enactment of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 and Rules 2014. Consequently, BECML ceased commercial activity and revenue generation.
• Multiple Police Cases: Jamuria Police Station had initiated several FIRs on the same facts – Cases 301/2017 through 331/2017, 406/2019, 407/2019, 445/2019 – indicating multiplicity of proceedings.
• State’s Submission: The Additional Public Prosecutor highlighted that the complainant’s claim dated back to 2015, the FIR was lodged on 09.11.2019, and a charge‑sheet (No. 09/2020 dated 31.01.2020) was filed against the accused, alleging absconding.
• Court’s Reasoning:
• The alleged conduct is fundamentally a civil dispute over unpaid dues; criminal intent (mens rea) is absent.
• The cancellation of the coal blocks and subsequent statutory provisions provide a legitimate reason for non‑payment, negating any deception.
• Vicarious liability does not attach to the petitioners as they were not directors of BECML.
• Precedent cases (e.g., Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, Uma Sankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar, Y.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat, Thermal Ltd v. K.M. Johny, Vesa Holdings v. State of Kerala, Satish Chandra Ratanal Singh v. State of Gujarat, Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, Mitesh Kumar J. Sah v. State of Karnataka, Sarbjit Kaur v. State of Punjab) support quashing frivolous prosecutions.
• The court cited its own earlier order (CRR No. 4999 of 2023, dated 25.06.2024) quashing similar proceedings against EMTA Coal Ltd and its directors.
• The presence of part payments and the delay in filing the FIR further undermine the prosecution’s case.
• The court also referenced decisions on cheating and criminal breach of trust (e.g., Vir Prakash Sharma, Binod Kumar, Medmeme LLC, Vinod Natesan, Sk Alagh) to affirm that non‑payment alone does not constitute cheating.

Final Outcome

• The High Court quashes the criminal proceeding (G.R. Case No. 2608 of 2019) against the petitioners, holding that the case is civil in nature, lacks mens rea, and the petitioners are not liable for the actions of Bengal EMTA Coal Mines Ltd.
• The order directs that a certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties promptly.

Topics: Court Order, Criminal Procedure, Coal Mining Dispute