Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Chandrani Chaudhuri & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 8 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 48 of 2022
with
CRAN 8 of 2024
Chandrani Chaudhuri & Ors.
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pradip Kr. Roy,
Mr. Tirthajit Roychowdhury.
For the Private : None.
Opposite Party No. 2
For the State : None.
Hearing concluded on : 08.01.2025
Judgment on : 08.01.2025
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for
quashing of the proceeding being A.C. Case No. 509 of 2021 under
Sections 506/406/379 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the
learned Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Alipore.
2
2. From the petition of complaint, it appears that the petitioner no. 1 is
the elder sister, petitioner no. 2 is the middle sister of the complainant
and petitioner no.3 is the middle sister’s husband.
3. In the present case, the complainant/opposite party no. 2 has alleged
that the petitioners have misappropriated moveable assets after the
death of their parents from the bank and other accounts including the
jewellary from the bank lockers.
4. It is further stated that on several dates the accused persons entered
the de facto complainant’s house and took away valuable articles
forcibly. They also allegedly entered into the ground floor of the house
by breaking open the lock.
5. In spite of due service there is no representation on behalf of the
complainant/opposite party no. 2 herein.
6. This Court relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Birla
Corporation Ltd. vs. Adventz Investments and holdings, Criminal
Appeal No. 875 of 2019 with Criminal Appeal No. 877 of 2019,
wherein the Court held:-
“……..86. In Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. and
Others (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Supreme Court after
observing that there is a growing tendency in business
circles to convert powerful civil disputes in criminal cases
held as under:-
“14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance
should be prevented from seeking remedies available in
criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a
prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings
are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law,
should himself be made accountable, at the end of such
misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law.
3
One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb
unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent
parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 CrPC
more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness
or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as
it may………”
(Medmeme LLC & Ors. vs. M/s. Ihorse BPO Solutions
Pvt. Ltd. (2018)13 SCC 374).
7. In M/s. Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd. & Ors.,
Appeal (crl.) 834 of 2002 decided on 20.07.2006, the Supreme
Court considered the following point among the two points decided.
“……..8. The High Court by common judgment dated
23.3.2001 allowed both the petitions and quashed the two
complaints. It accepted the second ground urged by the
Respondents herein, but rejected the first ground. The said
order of the High Court is under challenge in these appeals.
On the rival contentions urged, the following points arise for
consideration :
(i) Whether existence or availment of civil remedy in
respect of disputes arising from breach of contract,
bars remedy under criminal law?
(ii) Whether the allegations in the complaint, if
accepted on face value, constitute any offence
under sections 378, 403, 405, 415 or 425 IPC ?
Re : Point No. (i) :
9. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to
quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been
stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To
mention a few – Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [1988 (1) SCC 692], State
of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], Rupan
Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [1995 (6) SCC
194], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro
Industries Ltd., [1996 (5) SCC 591], State of Bihar vs.
Rajendra Agrawalla [1996 (8) SCC 164], Rajesh Bajaj v.
State NCT of Delhi, [1999 (3) SCC 259], Medchl Chemicals &
4
Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [2000 (3) SCC
269], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [2000
(4) SCC 168], M. Krishnan vs Vijay Kumar [2001 (8) SCC
645], and Zandu Phamaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd.
Sharaful Haque [2005 (1) SCC 122]. The principles, relevant
to our purpose are :
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made
in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out the case alleged against the
accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a
whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations.
Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the
material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness
of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while
examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear
abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal
proceeding is found to have been initiated with
malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm,
or where the allegations are absurd and inherently
improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle
or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be
used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the
legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary
factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the
ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in
detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of
the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so
bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely
necessary for making out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil
wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil
wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial
transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from
furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in
civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the
nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different
from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the
complaint relates to a commercial transaction or
5
breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is
available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground
to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is
whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a
criminal offence or not.
10. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice
of a growing tendency in business circles to convert
purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is
obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law
remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect
the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen
in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable
break down of marriages/families. There is also an
impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in
a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent
settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and
claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by
applying pressure though criminal prosecution should
be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri vs.
State of UP [2000 (2) SCC 636], this Court observed :
“It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil
nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal
proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available
in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to
exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a
serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the
basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this
Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process
of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be
prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law,
a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution,
being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are
unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should
himself be made accountable, at the end of such
misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law.
One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb
unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent
parties, is to exercise their power under section 250 Cr.P.C.
more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness
or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as
it may………”
6
8. The Supreme Court in Randheer Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors., (2021) 14 SCC 626, held:-
“……..18. The only question is whether there is any
criminal offence disclosed in the FIR so far as the Appellant
is concerned. When the High Court passed its order dated
5th October, 2017, Rajan Kumar (since deceased), the
executant of the sale deed and the Power of Attorney holder
was also an applicant before the Court. Today, there has
been a change in situation, in that, criminal proceedings
against Rajan Kumar have abated since Rajan Kumar is no
longer alive. It is the case of the private respondent that the
private respondent purchased property. In the meantime,
Rajan Kumar, who is no longer alive, on the basis of a false
Power of Attorney of Bela Rani, executed a sale deed in
favour of Randheer Singh, i.e., the Appellant herein. There
is only a vague averment “by connivance”. The next part of
the sentence reads “Bela Rani had no right to sell the
aforesaid plot.”
23. Even though an FIR need not contain every detail,
an offence has to be made out in the FIR itself. It is the
case of the Private Respondents that Bela Rani has no title.
Bela Rani executed a false Power of Attorney in favour of
Rajan Kumar (since deceased). Alternatively, the Power of
Attorney, in itself, was a forged document.
24. A fraudulent, fabricated or forged deed could mean a
deed which was not actually executed, but a deed which
had fraudulently been manufactured by forging the
signature of the ostensible executants. It is one thing to say
that Bela Rani fraudulently executed a Power of Attorney
authorising the sale of property knowing that she had no
title to convey the property. It is another thing to say that
the Power of Attorney itself was a forged, fraudulent,
fabricated or manufactured one, meaning thereby that it
had never been executed by Bela Rani. Her signature had
been forged. It is impossible to fathom how the investigating
authorities could even have been prima facie satisfied that
the deed had been forged or fabricated or was fraudulent
without even examining the apparent executant Bela Rani,
who has not even been cited as a witness………”
On noting several precedents the Court finally held:-
“………33. In this case, it appears that criminal
proceedings are being taken recourse to as a weapon
7of harassment against a purchaser. It is reiterated at
the cost of repetition that the FIR does not disclose any
offence so far as the Appellant is concerned. There is no
whisper of how and in what manner, this Appellant is
involved in any criminal offence and the charge sheet, the
relevant part whereof has been extracted above, is
absolutely vague. There can be no doubt that jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly
for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a
complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends on the
nature of the allegation and whether the essential
ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not has to be
judged by the High Court. There can be no doubt that a
complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a
criminal texture. The High Court has, however, to see
whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour
of criminal offence. In such a situation, the High Court
should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as
held by this Court in Paramjeet Batra (supra) extracted
above.
34. The given set of facts may make out a civil wrong
as also a criminal offence. Only because a civil
remedy is available may not be a ground to quash
criminal proceedings. But as observed above, in this
case, no criminal offence has been made out in the
FIR read with the Charge-Sheet so far as this
Appellant is concerned. The other accused Rajan
Kumar has died……….”
9. In the present case, there is no material on record to make out a
prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences alleged, which
is clearly a family property dispute.
10. CRR 48 of 2022 is thus allowed.
11. The proceeding being A.C. Case No. 509 of 2021 under Sections
506/406/379 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Alipore, is hereby quashed in respect
of the petitioners namely Chandrani Chaudhuri, Indrani Das and
Daipayan Das.
8
12. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of.
13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
14. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary
compliance.
15. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal
formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)