Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction

Order Date: 25 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: System Domain Pvt. Ltd., a computer training institute based in Bangalore, and its directors/employees Mr. Sandeep Joshi, Mr. Kajal Kr. Dutta, Ms. Rupa Brahmachari (petitioners Nos. 3‑6).
  • Opposite Party: Service Dial Talent Management Pvt. Ltd., a placement and talent management agency, represented by its Director Bikram Roy.
  • Background: A "Talent Search Agreement" was executed on 31 January 2017 under which Service Dial was to source, assess and refer suitable candidates for employment openings at the petitioner’s institute. Candidates referred between January and February 2017 included Kavya, Nandani S., Ashmita Mondal Roy, and Rekha Pai G.
  • Dispute: Service Dial alleges that the petitioners utilised the referred candidates but failed to pay the agreed service charges and professional dues amounting to Rs 1,40,000, calculated on the basis of expected annual salaries.
  • Criminal Complaint: A complaint (Case No. CS/47392/17, T.R. No. 7431/17) was filed on 31 July 2017 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, invoking Sections 420, 406, 417, 418, 427 and 120B of the IPC. The petitioners surrendered, obtained bail, and subsequently filed a criminal revisional application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (CRR 3463 of 2017).
  • Legal Submissions: Petitioners argued the matter is a pure civil breach of contract; no dishonest or fraudulent intention existed at the inception of the agreement, and the alleged acts do not satisfy the ingredients of cheating (Sec. 420) or criminal breach of trust (Sec. 406). They also contended that inclusion of employees under Section 120B is an abuse of process. Counsel cited Supreme Court precedents – Indian Oil Corp. v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) and G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) – emphasizing that converting civil disputes into criminal cases is impermissible.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The Court examined the agreement, email correspondences, and invoices, finding the transaction to be a standard commercial placement arrangement. No specific averment of dishonest intention was identified in the complaint. The “entrustment” concept under Section 405 IPC was deemed inapplicable to a service‑based recruitment contract. The inclusion of petitioners Nos. 3‑6 without individual acts under Section 120B was viewed as coercive pressure to recover civil dues.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 406, 417, 418, 427 and 120B IPC are not prima facie disclosed; the dispute is civil in nature.
  • The revisional application (CRR 3463 of 2017) is allowed.
  • All criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. CS/47392/17 (T.R. No. 7431/17) pending before the 3rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, are quashed and set aside.
  • Interim orders, if any, are vacated; connected applications, if any, are disposed of.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Directions: A copy of the judgment along with trial court records to be transmitted to the learned Trial Court; case diary to be returned to counsel for the State; urgent certified copy to be supplied to parties upon compliance.

Topics: Criminal Law, Contract Dispute, Judicial Review