Authority: Calcutta High Court (Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul))

Order Date: 24 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Anurag Gupta & Sanjay Kumar Gupta (represented by Moyukh Mukherjee, Sagnika Banerjee, Sarmistha Basak) and others; Respondent – State of West Bengal represented by Sagar Saha and Sandeep Prasad Shaw.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Criminal revisional jurisdiction (CRR 3193 of 2023) seeking quash of FIR and chargesheet filed under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the IPC, arising from G.R. No. 09/2021, Bidhannagar (South) Police Station Case No. 1 of 2021 dated 2 Jan 2021.
  • Background: The FIR alleged that the de‑facto complainant paid a sum to developer MKHS Realty LLP for a flat that was not constructed or handed over on time. Petitioners, directors of LGW Ltd., were named as accused despite having no role in construction; LGW Ltd. is the landowner.
  • Agreements: On 5 Dec 2014 LGW Ltd. entered six Development Agreements with MKHS Realty LLP (represented by Mounthill Realty Pvt. Ltd. and Sankalp Height Pvt. Ltd.) for the project “The Pyramid” (17 towers, G+10). Six Powers of Attorney were executed, delegating all construction, plan approval and permission responsibilities to MKHS Realty LLP. Six Allocation Agreements dated the same day allocated specific flats to the developer; Flat No. J/2 in Tower/Block No. 16 (the subject of the FIR) fell within the developer’s allocation.
  • Complaint Details: Written complaint dated 02.01.2020 alleged breach of a sale agreement executed in 2015 between the complainant (and wife) and MKHS Realty LLP, with LGW Ltd. as landowner. The complainant claimed delayed construction and lack of a complete sanction plan.
  • Evidence: Memo of Evidence showed seized original agreements and money receipts issued solely by MKHS Realty LLP; no receipts indicated any amount received by LGW Ltd. or its directors, suggesting petitioners were victims.
  • Legal Submissions: Petitioners relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments (e.g., Lalita Kumari, S.W. Palanitkar, Uma Shankar Gopalika, Sarabjit Kaur, State of Kerala v. Parneed Pillai, Dalip Kaur, Lalit Chaturvedi) emphasizing that a civil breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence unless fraudulent intent is proved.
  • Opposite Party’s Affidavit: Reiterated the land ownership by LGW Ltd., the six development agreements, advance payment of Rs 3.5 crore per agreement (total Rs 21 crore), and the joint‑development powers of attorney. However, it concealed that the complainant’s sale agreement was directly with MKHS Realty LLP.
  • Supreme Court Precedents Cited: Rikhab Birani & Anr. (2025) on elements of cheating; V.Y. Jose (on civil disputes vs criminal prosecution); Sharif Ahmed (on ingredients of offences under Sections 406, 415, 420, 503, 506); and numerous other authorities stressing the need for dishonest intent at contract formation.
  • High Court Reasoning: Found that the FIR and charge‑sheet lacked any criminal ingredient; the dispute is purely civil. Cited Section 482 CrPC power to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process. Applied categories 1, 3 and 7 of Bhajan Lal (1992) – no prima‑facie offence, no evidence of offence, and proceeding manifestly mala‑fide.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court allowed CRR 3193 of 2023 and quashed the criminal proceedings (G.R. No. 09/2021) against petitioners Anurag Gupta and Sanjay Kumar Gupta.
  • All connected applications, if any, were disposed of.
  • Any interim orders stood vacated.
  • The judgment copy is to be sent to the learned Trial Court for compliance, and an urgent certified website copy to be supplied upon completion of formalities.

Topics: Legal Quash, Real Estate Dispute