Authority: Calcutta High Court
Order Date: 16 September 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: Tigerhill Vinimay Private Limited (absolute owner of 123.79 satak land in J.L. No.84, Mouza‑Ramnagar, Hooghly) and its directors (Petitioner Nos.2 & 3) and an advocate consultant (Petitioner No.4). Opposite party: Pankaj Ladia, claiming ownership of 179.25 decimal agricultural land in the same mouza.
- In August 2018, negotiations began for purchase of the adjacent plot to make the petitioners’ holding contiguous. The opposite party provided only photocopies of title deeds and the current Record of Rights (ROR), no originals or 30‑year ROR history.
- Petitioners paid Rs 1,58,45,971 by post‑dated cheque No. 816664 dated 03‑09‑2018 (Axis Bank, Dalhousie Branch) after the opposite party assured a full refund if the deal fell through.
- After due‑diligence revealed title defects, petitioners cancelled the transaction and demanded return of the cheque. The opposite party deposited the cheque; it was returned with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Petitioners stopped payment.
- The opposite party filed a cheque‑dishonour case (C.S. 107429 of 2018) under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; summons issued on 21‑02‑2019, petitioners released on bail of Rs 10,000 each.
- Subsequently, the opposite party instituted criminal complaint C.S. 4034 of 2019 under Sections 420/473/120B IPC before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, later transferred to Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta. Summons issued on 20‑06‑2019; petitioners granted bail on 21‑09‑2019 (Petitioners Nos.2 & 3) and 18‑10‑2019 (Petitioner No.4).
- Petitioners argue no sale agreement or deed existed; the cheque was issued only as part of negotiations and was dishonoured after cancellation. They claim the complaint is retaliatory, frivolous, and an abuse of process.
- Opposite party’s counsel contends the opposite party is the absolute owner, that original documents were handed over, and that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, seeking continuation of the criminal case.
Final Outcome
- The High Court held that the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 473, 120B IPC.
- No dishonest inducement or agreement for sale existed; the matter is a civil dispute, not a criminal offence.
- The proceeding C.S. 4034 of 2019 is therefore an abuse of process and is quashed. All orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate are set aside, and the interim order is vacated.
- The judgment is to be transmitted to the trial court for appropriate action.
Topics: Criminal Revision, Cheating Charges