Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 29 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant Indroneel Goho, former Chief Executive Officer of Darjeeling Organic Tea Estates Private Limited; Respondent Razouvonu Thong, proprietor of C.R. Traders, and associated respondents.
  • Background: A Memorandum of Understanding dated 01‑06‑2021 was executed between Darjeeling Organic Tea Estates and C.R. Traders concerning the Jamguri Tea Estate in Golaghat, Assam. On 07‑06‑2021, C.R. Traders transferred Rs 40,00,000 (Rs 40 lakh) to the bank account of Darjeeling Organic Tea Estates in two instalments of Rs 39,95,000 and Rs 5,000.
  • Dispute: Respondent alleged that the appellant induced the payment by falsely representing that the Jamguri Tea Estate belonged to the Company, invoking Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. A criminal complaint (C.R. Case No. 17 of 2022) was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dimapur, Nagaland, and the magistrate found prima facie grounds to proceed. The appellant sought quash of the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC before the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench. The High Court dismissed the petition on 13‑05‑2025, holding that a prima facie case of cheating existed and that the arbitration clause in the MoU did not bar criminal prosecution.
  • Supreme Court Findings: The Court observed that for offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC, dishonest intention must exist at the inception of the transaction. The complaint did not disclose such intention because the amount was transferred directly to the Company’s account and there was no allegation that the appellant appropriated any part for personal benefit. The representation that the Jamguri Tea Estate belonged to the Company was contested, but the respondent was aware of the mortgage with UCO Bank and the MoU contemplated clearance of dues and eventual acquisition. The Court held that the matter was essentially a contractual dispute, and the allegations did not satisfy the essential ingredients of cheating.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is allowed; the High Court judgment and order dated 13‑05‑2025 are set aside.
  • Criminal proceedings in C.R. Case No. 17 of 2022 are quashed insofar as the appellant is concerned.
  • The order does not preclude the respondent from pursuing any civil or contractual remedies available under law.
  • All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

Topics: Criminal Law, Corporate Dispute