Authority: Calcutta High Court, Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction, Appellate Side

Order Date: 07.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Gaurav Upadhyay & Anr.; Respondent – State of West Bengal & Anr.; De‑facto complainant – Trackon Earth Movers (represented by Ganga Prasad).
  • Proceeding Quashed: G.R. Case No. 2676 of 2017, arising from Jamuria Police Station Case No. 326 of 2017 under Section 420 IPC, pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman.
  • Background: The dispute stemmed from alleged non‑payment of Rs 10,62,180 by Eastern Minerals Trading Agency (EMTA) for coal transportation and civil work at Tara East‑West Coal Mine. The claim was addressed to Bengal EMTA Coal Mines Ltd (BECML), a joint‑venture of West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd, Durgapur Projects Ltd and EMTA Coal Ltd. Directors of BECML were listed as Bikash Mukherjee, Ujjal Kumar Upadhyay, Gaurav Bagaria, etc.; however, petitioners asserted they were not directors of the joint‑venture and had no control over its affairs.
  • Legal Context: The Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary (Writ Petition (CRL) 120 of 2012) cancelled 204 coal blocks, including Tara East‑West, on 25.08.2014 and 24.09.2014. Consequently, the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 and Rules 2014 were enacted, forcing BECML to halt commercial activity and revenue generation.
  • Allegations: The complainant alleged that directors of BECML (including Ujjal Upadhyay, Gourav Upadhyay, Saugata Upadhyay) were involved in fraud and cheating. A charge‑sheet (No. 202/2019 dated 30.06.2019) was filed, and multiple FIRs (Case Nos. 301/2017 to 445/2019) were registered by Jamuria Police Station.
  • Court’s Observations:
  • The petitioners were not directors of BECML; they had no active control, making vicarious liability untenable.
  • The cancellation of the coal blocks provided a legitimate reason for non‑payment; no deception (mens rea) was established.
  • Part payments had been made, and the dispute was essentially civil, not criminal.
  • Multiple FIRs on the same facts constitute abuse of process.
  • Precedents cited include Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000), Uma Sankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar (2005), Y.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat (2009), Thermal Ltd v. K.M. Johny (2011), Vesa Holdings v. State of Kerala (2015), Satish Chandra Ratanal Singh v. State of Gujarat (2019), Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal (2022), Mitesh Kumar J. Sah v. State of Karnataka (2022), Sarbjit Kaur v. State of Punjab (2023).
  • The Court also referenced a prior quashing of similar proceedings (CRR No. 4999 of 2023, order dated 25.06.2024) and another case (G.R. Case No. 1742 of 2022) where charges under Sections 406, 417, 420, 120B were dismissed.
  • Legal Principles Applied: No criminal liability without both actus reus and mens rea; vicarious liability requires statutory provision; non‑payment alone does not constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC.

Final Outcome

  • The Court quashes the criminal proceeding (Section 420 IPC) against the petitioners, holding that the matter is civil in nature and that there is no basis for criminal prosecution.
  • An urgent certified copy of the order is to be supplied to the parties.

Topics: Legal Quashing, Coal Mining Dispute