Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Arideep Saha vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 29 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Appellate Side
Present:
Justice Bibhas Ranjan De
C.R.R. 1128 of 2015
Sri Arideep Saha
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioners :Ms. Bhaswati Chaudhuri, Adv.
For the State :Mr. Bidyut Kr. Roy, Adv.
Ms. Rita Dutta, Adv.
Heard on :09.06.2023,18.07.2023, 09.08.2023,
24.08.2023, 12.09.2023, 21.09.2023
Judgment on : 29th September, 2023
Bibhas Ranjan De, J.
1. By this revision application prayer was made for quashment of
proceedings in connection with Panchla Police Station Case
No. 184 of 2012 dated 08.11.2012 under Section
420/406/468/471/472/120B of the Indian Penal Code (for
short IPC) corresponding to G.R. No. 7499 of 2012.
2. On 08.11.2012 at 11.15 hours Panchla Police Station received
a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short CrPC) filed by one Sri Nemai Chandra
Sadhukhan (OP2 herein), Director of M/s. Surendra Enclaves
Private Limited having office at village + Post Office-
Bikihakola, PS-Panchla, Howrah before the Learned Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Sadar, alleging, inter alia,
that the petitioners conspired and enticed the defacto
complainant, opposite party No. 2 (for short OP2) to purchase
a land having JL No. 15, Touzi No. 351, Mouja Rasapunja
under Police Station Bishnupur, District South 24 Parganas,
Dag No. 1986, Khatian number 243, measuring 26 decimals,
Dag No. 1085, Khatian No. 160, measuring 25 decimals, (total
measuring being 1 Acre 97 decimals) at a total consideration
of Rs. 1,58,00,000/- .
3. Accordingly, an agreement for sale was executed on
12.09.2008 at Bikihakola and an amount of Rs. 67,70,000/-
was paid to the owner. Later on he paid more amounting to
total of Rs. 1,08,70,000/-. But, till date the FIR named
persons neither executed any deed of sale nor returned the
money paid to them in connection with the aforementioned
purchase.
4. From the record it appears that in spite of service of notice
none appears to represent the opposite party no. 2. However I
heard Ld. Advocate, Ms. Bhaswati Chaudhuri, appearing on
behalf of the petitioners and Ld. Advocate, Mr. Bidyut Kr. Roy
on behalf of the State. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has tried to make this Court understand that the
dispute regarding breach of agreement for sale attract only the
civil liability and such dispute cannot be taken to any criminal
forum. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has
relied on the materials in the case diary. Mr. Roy submitted
that the dispute arose between the parties for not registering
the remaining portion of the land agreed for sale.
5. According to agreement for sale by and between the parties,
the petitioners were to register the deed in respect of 1.97
Acres of land in favour of opposite party no. 2/ company at a
consideration of an amount of Rs. 1,58,00,000/-.
Subsequently, a deed of conveyance was executed by the
petitioners in favour of the opposite party no. 2 in respect of
100 decimals of land at a consideration of Rs. 20,05,560/-.
6. Now it is not intelligible that how the consideration money to
the tune of Rs. 20.05,560/- can be assessed for the land
measuring one(1) Acre while there was an agreement for sale
of 1.97 acres of land at a consideration of Rs. 1,58,00,000/-.
That apart, sale of 1 acre of land at a consideration amount of
Rs. 20.05,560/- was further ratified by Director of the
Company (opposite party no. 2) in course of recording his
statement under Section 161 of the CrPC. However, by no
stretch of imagination, I can assume that opposite party no. 2
paid rest amount of Rs. 88,64,440/- for the remaining land
measuring 97 decimals only.
7. Be that as it may, the dispute as it appears from the
application under Section 156(3) for CrPC relates to breach of
agreement for sale which is purely civil in nature. It is settled
principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several
decision that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to
criminal prosecution for cheating, leaving no scope for
criminal liability.
8. In aforesaid view of the matter the proceeding is liable to be
quashed.
9. The revision application being no. 1128 of 2015 stands
allowed. The proceedings in connection with Panchla Police
Station Case No. 184 of 2012 dated 08.11.2012 under Section
420/406/468/471/472/120B of the Indian Penal Code (for
short IPC) corresponding to G.R. No. 7499 of 2012, stands
quashed.
10. C.R.R. 1128 of 2015 stands allowed.
11. Interim order, if there be any, stands vacated and all
pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
12. Case diary be returned.
13. All parties to this revisional application shall act on the
server copy of this order downloaded from the official website
of this Court.
14. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all
requisite formalities.
[BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.]
