Allowed¶46

Jitendra Kumar Arya v. M/S Slekha Designer Private Limited

Calcutta HC4 Jul 2025CRR/3540/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceeding; abuse of process of Court; complaint under S.200 CrPC; Sections 406/409/420/120B IPC; cheating versus criminal breach of trust from same transaction; absence of initial deception; intention at time of inducement; complaint failing to spell out ingredients or accusee's specific role; criminal jurisdiction as recovery proceeding deprecated; part payment Rs. 3,53,960 of Rs. 6,26,222; balance Rs. 2,72,262; GBMS Retails (P) Ltd; Slekha Designer Private Limited; Jitendra Kumar Arya; Calcutta HC Criminal Revision; C.R.R. 3540 of 2022; Bibhas Ranjan De.

What did the court decide?

Revision application CRR 3540 of 2022 allowed; the proceeding in connection with complaint case no. CN 226/2022 quashed against the petitioner; connected applications disposed of; interim orders vacated; case diary to be returned.

Jitendra Kumar Arya Vs M/S Slekha Designer Private… — Cheating and Forgery | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned criminal proceeding arising out of complaint case no. 226 of 2022 should be quashed against the petitioner as an abuse of the process of the Court. +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

Continuance of the impugned criminal process for oblique purpose is non est in the eye of law and only amounts to abuse of the process of Court; accordingly the proceeding impugned in the revision application was found fit to be quashed.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

Even assuming the assertions made in the complaint are correct, they could not justifiably attract any of the ingredients constituting an offence under Section 420 IPC in the absence of initial deception.

¶41

Key takeaways

The same act or transaction cannot result in offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust simultaneously; the intention of the accused at the time of inducement alone must be looked into, and subsequent conduct is not the sole test.ratio¶41
The tone and tenor of the complaint and the averments made therein fail to spell out the details, particulars and necessary ingredients required to prima facie establish the offences alleged.ratio¶43
The attempt to ignite criminal jurisdiction as a recovery proceeding has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a plethora of decisions (stated in support of the court's reasoning, without naming any particular decision).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court (Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction), Bibhas Ranjan De, J., judgment dated 04.07.2025, allowed C.R.R. 3540 of 2022 and quashed, against petitioner Jitendra Kumar Arya, the proceeding in complaint case no. 226/2022 (cognizance taken on 04.02.2022 by the Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta under Sections 406/409/420/120B IPC and transferred to the 13th Metropolitan Magistrate). Complainant M/s. Slekha Designer Private Limited had supplied goods and textiles worth Rs. 6,26,222/- (15 tax invoices) to M/s. GBMS Retails (P) Ltd. between September and October 2018; part payments of Rs. 3,53,960/- left a balance of Rs. 2,72,262/-. The court held that even assuming the complaint's assertions true, no offence under Section 420 IPC arises absent initial deception; cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot flow from the same transaction, intention at inducement alone being relevant; the complaint failed to spell out the particulars and ingredients of the offences and did not aver the petitioner's precise role; recourse to criminal jurisdiction as a recovery proceeding being deprecated, continuance of the process was abuse of the Court's process. Interim orders vacated; case diary directed to be returned.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction) Appellate Side

¶2

Present:

¶3

Justice Bibhas Ranjan De

¶4

C.R.R. 3540 of 2022

¶5

IA No: CRAN 1 of 2023

¶6

With

¶7

Jitendra Kumar Arya

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M/s. Slekha Designer Private Limited

¶10

For the Petitioner :Mr. Anirban Dutta, Adv. Mr. S. Abedin, Adv. Mrs. Chitra Abedin, Adv.

¶11

Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv.

¶12

Last Heard on :25.06.2025

¶13

Judgment on :04.07.2025

¶14

¶15

Bibhas Ranjan De, J.

¶16

1. The instant revision application has been preferred assailing the Order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, in connection with complaint case no. 226 of 2022 whereby Ld. Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance of the complaint under Sections 406/409/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter IPC) and transferred the same to the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 13^th Court, Calcutta for disposal.

¶17

2. The entire narrative which gave rise to the impugned proceeding in a nutshell is to the effect that the complainant company/opposite party had a business relation with the company namely M/s. GBMS Retails (P) limited (hereinafter company) for a period between September 2018 to October 2018, where the opposite party delivered goods & textiles worth Rs. 6,26,222/-(Rupees six lakhs twenty six thousand two hundred and twenty two only) along with 15 tax invoices. It has been further alleged that goods worth Rs. 2,72,262/(Rupees Two lakhs seventy two thousand two hundred and sixty two only) were misappropriated and the same was

¶18

¶19

communicated to the company. But despite such

¶20

communications the accused persons continued to neglect and ignore the payment against long standing dues and eventually refused to pay the due amount. As a sequel, the opposite party had filed a complaint before the Court of Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter CrPC) alleging commission of offences under Sections 406/409/420/120B of the IPC who in tern was pleased to take cognizance and transfer the same before the Court of 13^th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, for disposal. The petitioner eventually surrendered before the Ld. Magistrate and was enlarged on bail on 09.06.2022. Being aggrieved with the impugned proceedings, the petitioner approached this Court with a prayer for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶21

3. Mr. Anirban Dutta, Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner at the very outset has vehemently contended that the petitioner was a Director of the Company for a very short period of time and his role was very much restricted. He was not involved in the day to day functions of the said Company.

¶22

¶23

A bare perusal of the complaint lodged at the behest of the opposite party would also suggest that there is no averment in the said complaint with regard to the exact role of the petitioner in committing the offences alleged. Hence, it would

¶24

be a gross abuse of process of law if the petitioner is entangled in the impugned criminal proceeding. Alternatively, Mr. Dutta has submitted that the written complaint was filed on 05.07.2022 whereas the cause of action arose on 18.09.2018. Therefore, after almost a gap of four (4) years, the opposite party had filed the complaint but no reason for such inordinate delay has been stated therein, which is not permissible in the eye of law.

¶25

4. Before parting with, Mr. Dutta has remarked that it is an admitted position of fact that an amount of Rs. 3,53,960/has been paid out of the entire due amount of Rs. 6,26,222/. The factum of part performance and part payment has been duly admitted by the complainant in the petition itself. Therefore, Ld. Counsel has tried to make this Court understand that since there is no intention from inception to cheat the opposite party, no offence is made out.

¶26

¶27

5. In support of his contention, Mr. Dutta has relied on the following cases:-

¶28

Naresh Kuma vs. State of Karnataka, AIROnline 2020

¶29

Kar 2795

¶30

Manish vs. State of Maharashtra, AIRONLINE 2025 SC 204

¶31

Lalit Chaturvedi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,

¶32

AIRONLINE 2024 SC 366

¶33

V.Y. Jose and anr vs. State of Gujrat and anr, AIR 2011 SC (CRIMINAL) 1887

¶34

6. None appears on behalf of the opposite party.

¶35

Analysis:-

¶36

7. Having meticulously considered all the assertions made by

¶37

the Ld. Counsel along with the cases relied thereon, I feel that it would be necessary to first look into the averments of the complaint made at the behest of the opposite party. Upon a thorough and exhaustive examination of the complaint, it is quite clear that the main grievance of the opposite party is with regard to failure of the accused to pay the outstanding balance amount in spite of repeated demand of the opposite

¶38

party/complainant. The opposite party stated that supplies

¶39

¶40

were made with regard to goods and textiles worth Rs. 6,26,222/- between the period from September 2018 to October 2018. The accused had made part payments amounting to Rs. 3,53,960/-. Thereby leaving a due balance of Rs. 2,72,262/-.

¶41

8. Therefore, if it is assumed that the assertions made in the complaint are correct even then that could not justifiably attract any of the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 of the IPC in absence of initial deception. Moreover, it is settled that the same act or transaction cannot result in an offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust simultaneously as every act of breach of trust may not result in penal offence of criminal breach of trust. To put it in other words, the case of cheating and dishonest intention starts with the very inception of the transaction. The distinction between mere breach of contract and offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating is a fine one. In such cases, the intention of the accused at the time of inducement must only be looked into. The subsequent conduct is not the sole test.

¶42

¶43

9. The tone and tenor of the complaint and the averments made therein fail to spell out the details and particulars and the necessary ingredients to prima facie establish the offences alleged. It would also be pertinent to mention that the attempt to ignite criminal jurisdiction as a recovery proceeding has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a plethora of decisions.

¶44

10. In the premises setforthabove, continuance of the impugned criminal process for oblique purpose is nonest in the eye of law and only amounts to abuse of the process of Court. Therefore, I find no other option but to quash the proceeding impugned in this revision application.

¶45

11. As a sequel, the instant revision application being no. CRR 3540 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶46

12. The proceeding in connection with complaint case no. CN 226/2022 stands quashed against the petitioner.

¶47

13. Connected applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶48

14. Interim order, if there be any, stands vacated.

¶49

15. Case diary be returned at once.

¶50

¶51

16. All parties to this revisional application shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶52

17. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶53

[BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.]

Jitendra Kumar Arya v. M/S Slekha Designer Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Arya v. M/S Slekha Designer Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Timir Baran Biswas Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Mangkara Hynniewta Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Gautam Chakraborty @ Goutam Chakraborty Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Vishal Jaiswal and Others Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Pankaj Kumar Agarwala Vs M/S Panchiram Nahata

Ram Sharan Singh and Another Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.