Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Sarada Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs M/S. P.G. Electricals on 20 April, 2026
2026:CHC-AS:619
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
CRR 2107 of 2018
I.A No. CRAN 10 of 2025
CRAN 12 of 2025
M/S. Sarada Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Vs.
M/S. P.G. Electricals.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee
Mr. Anirban Dutta
Mr. Saudull Abedin
Ms. Chitra Abedin
Ms. Pooja Singh
For the Opposite Party : Ms. Priyanka Agarwal
Ms. Priyanka Sarkar
Heard on : 06.01.2026
Judgment on : 20.04.2026
Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
1. The petitioners herein have challenged the proceeding being complaint
case no. 39665 of 2018 for alleged commission of offence punishable under
section 406/409/420 read with 120B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) presently
pending before learned judicial Magistrate, 8th court, Calcutta.
1
2026:CHC-AS:619
2. The gist of the allegations levelled in the said complaint is that the
petitioners by representing themselves to be a profitable company and
having goodwill in the field of business, induced the complainant to enter
into business dealing with the petitioner. The complainant by virtue of such
false representation made by petitioner no. 2 to 5, being the directors and
executives of the company supplied electrical item/goods worth Rs.
11,15,297/- in favour of petitioner no. 1/company vide several invoices on
and from 21.01.2015 to 22.08.2015, which were duly despatched and
delivered to the petitioner. It is further alleged that inspite of repeated
demand made by the complaint to repay the outstanding purchase amount,
the petitioners herein failed and neglected to make the aforesaid payment
and tried to consume time on plea of being in a financial crisis. Ultimately
petitioners denied the transaction challenging authenticity of the bills.
3. Being aggrieved by the impugned proceeding learned counsel for the
petitioner Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee submits that the petitioners have made
there earnest endeavour to comprehend the various letters that had been
sent by the opposite party asking for payment of outstand bills, but the
opposite party could not support their claims with valid or legitimate bills
and/or delivery challan, signed by an authorised signatory of the opposite
party. He further submits that it would be evident from the various
communications that the petitioner have always shown there eagerness to
make payment of outstanding legitimate bills, if any, arising out of their
supply of electrical goods and had never intended to defraud or deceive the
opposite party. However the opposite party herein failed to furnish the bills
and challans in question for which payment was sought. By their letters
2
2026:CHC-AS:619
dated 12.05.2017 and 07.11.2017, petitioners had explicitly requested to
produce the authenticated outstanding bills but it was never furnished and
the opposite party instead sent only a mere list of bills, without any
validation or authentication.
4. He further argued that the opposite party also did not provide any
explanation for not furnishing the bills/challans in the instant revisional
application. The petitioners have specifically averred in paragraph 12 that
the petitioners were never in business with the opposite party and had there
been any outstanding payment as claimed, the opposite party would not
have failed or neglected or refused to supply valid documentation for the
same, in support of their claims and no such record of alleged transaction
were found and the opposite party also failed to substantiate the same.
Opposite party could not even supply any lorry receipt or acknowledgement
of delivery duly singed by the Mill Authorities of the purchased materials to
support their claims. In paragraph 15 of the instant application, it has been
further reiterated by the petitioners that they have/had never any business
dealing with the opposite party and had neither purchased any material
from them nor had placed any order to them. The list of bill is lacking of
validation and it’s a concocted document made in order to extract money
from the petitioner. The petitioners herein had duly replied to the demand
notice sent by opposite party on 29.03.2018 with request to furnish the
valid bills and challan thereof, duly singed by the authorised representative
of the mill. They have also duly replied the demand notice dated 30.03.2018
sent by opposite party herein.
3
2026:CHC-AS:619
5. Mr. Banerjee further argued that the impugned complaint had been
filed by the opposite party suppressing material fact in order to harass the
petitioners and extort money from them illegally. Learned Magistrate without
considering the materials on record and without considering the fact that
the opposite party failed to produce any document showing any transaction
with the petitioner no. 1, had taken cognizance of the offence. Learned
Magistrate ought to have dismissed the frivolous complaint filed by opposite
party in absence of any documentary proof of valid transaction. He further
argued that learned Magistrate failed to consider that the petitioner no. 2 to
5 are the directors of the petitioner no. 1 and have been made accused in
their vicarious capacity, without mentioning a single averment regarding the
involvement of petitioner no. 2 to 5 in the alleged offence. The court below
also failed to consider while taking cognizance that the basic ingredients of
section 406, which relate to entrustment of a property to another person
who in turn would subsequently convert the same to his own use or part
away with the same, are consequently absent in the present allegation. He
also failed to consider that no ingredient of the offence under section 420 of
the Indian Penal Code has been made out and therefore the impugned
proceeding is an abuse of process of court.
6. In this context Mr. Banerjee on behalf of the petitioners further argued
that the said complaint has been filed almost after three years from their
alleged initiation of the period of transaction. The complaint was filed in
April 18, 2018. Though a huge delay has been caused in filing the said
complaint, but nowhere such delay has been explained as to why the
opposite party no 2 waited for more than three years to redress a civil claim
4
2026:CHC-AS:619
in a criminal proceeding. He further argued that from the documents
including the documents annexed in the supplementary affidavits, it is
evident that the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 had transaction in
the past and therefore there was no deception from the initiation of
transaction. There was also substantial payment made in respect of the
bills, which have been raised by the opposite party. From the documents
annexed to the affidavit in opposition, it is also evident that the said bills are
unauthenticated and invalidated in the eyes of law. In this context he
referred judgment of the Apex Court passed in Manish Vs. State of
Maharashtra, AIR Online 2025 SC 204 in support of his contention that
in commercial dispute, to attract penal offence, it needs to be made out that
the offending party from inception had made dishonest representation and
induced the other party to deliver. It is evident form the document available
in the record that the petitioners from very beginning had also agreed to
make payments, in the event, valid authenticated bill are produced. The said
communication shows there was no intention of the petitioners to cause any
cheating which requires deception form the very initiation of a transaction or
to cause parting away with property. It is also evident that for the alleged
period there was no property which was entrusted and or handed over to the
petitioners, which has been alleged by parted away with or converted into
their own wrongful use by the petitioners. In absence of any mens rea on the
part of petitioners, the offence of cheating cannot be made out and in this
context he also relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in V.Y.Jos & Anr.
Vs. State of Gujrat and Anr., reported in AIR 2011 SC (Criminal) 1887.
5
2026:CHC-AS:619
7. Mr. Banerjee further argued in this context that it is settled
proposition of law that the ingredient of section 420 and 406 of IPC run
contradictory to each other. The Supreme Court in various decisions
including the Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and other case, reported in
(2024) 10 SCC 690 and in Lalit Chaturvedi Case, AIROnline 2024 SC
366 have categorically held that the offence of section 420 and 406 cannot
coexist on the basis of self-same set of facts. Therefore the opposite party
has failed to make out any case fearless a case under section 420 or 406 of
IPC and therefore the impugned proceeding is not sustainable in the eye of
law.
8. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
opposite party vehemently opposed the submission made on behalf of the
petitioners. She specifically submitted that the petitioners have taken false
plea that there was never any business transaction between the petitioner
and the opposite party in the instant Revisional Application to argue that
the criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed. The petitioner’s foundational
ground is unequivocal but false and it cannot be said that the false
averments featuring of several places in the instant Revisional Application
are inadvertent or typographical errors. They are a conscious deliberate act
of fraud and deception. She strenuously argued that the petitioners cannot
deny the existence of any transaction at one hand and on the other hand
demand from the opposite party to produce bills authenticating the
transaction. The petitioners who at the same time approbate and reprobate,
have not come before the court with clean hands and therefore not entitled
to get discretionary or equitable relief under section 482 of the Code.
6
2026:CHC-AS:619
9. Ms. Agarwal further argued that the goods were delivered worth Rs.
11,15,297/- in between 21.01.2015 to 22.08.2015. In this context Ms.
Agarwal further argued that repudiation/denial of transaction after receiving
goods is strong prima facie evidence in support of dishonest intention since
inception.
10. She further argued that delivery challans bearing transporter
endorsements are sufficient to prove prima facie sale of goods by the
opposite party to the petitioner. Receipt of invoices by the petitioner through
stamping and signing is not legally required for providing commercial
transactions. A typical commercial proof of delivery includes delivery
challans being transporter endorsement, stock/issue records, Vat/GST
returns/ledger and bank entries. She further submits that the genuineness
of delivery has been proved by delivery challans, transporter endorsement
and ledger entries and not by customer stamping. Stamped invoice is not a
legally required document for establishing sale/delivery of goods. Legally
delivery challans, transporter acknowledgements, e-way bills/VAT/GST
returns and bank entries are proof of sale. The petitioners cannot use
selective, self-serving documents while denying the rest. This is classic after
thought and manipulation. In this context she relied upon the judgment
reported in (2007) SCC Online Bom 1092 and 2021 SCC OnLine Del
3604.
11. She further submits that though these are all subject matter of trial
but it is matter of common prudence that in a supply transaction, the seller
keeps the receipt copy, not the buyer. Seller sends invoice, original retained
by buyer, deliver challans and sometimes duplicate and triplicate copies are
7
2026:CHC-AS:619
sent by seller. Buyer received the goods and signed one copy of the
invoice/delivery challans as proof of receipt. The stamped copy is returned
to the seller and not kept by the buyer. The seller keeps the receipt copy for
accounting, taxation and reconciliation. Therefore the complainant is the
custodian of receipt invoices not the accused and if any stamped or signed
invoice exists, it must normally be kept with the opposite party not with the
petitioners.
12. In this context Ms. Agarwal further argued that the petitioner never
pleaded a purely civil dispute as a ground for quashing. Their case is that of
total denial of transaction. Having pleaded such they cannot invoke
“running account/part payment” to seek quashing. She further argued that
each invoice is a separate contract even in a running account. Primarily the
petitioners have made false statement and denied all the transaction in
Revisional Application. Thereafter the petitioner had attempted to better
their case by making false averment in their reply that there was no
transaction in respect of the supply in question. By the denial of each
transaction, intention to cheat form the inception has been clearly
manifested. According to the counsel for the opposite party, the following
elements have been satisfied in the instant application:
(i) False statement on oath both in the revisional application the
affidavit-in-reply and supplementary affidavit filed by the
petitioner.
(ii) Materiality to the decision on quashing.
(iii) Intent to procure favourable order and to stall criminal trial.
(iv) Subsequent contradictory and prevaricating stands.
8
2026:CHC-AS:619
13. Her argument is where falsehood is apparent and the administration
of justice is obstructed, then the Application must be dismissed. In reply to
the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Agarwal
submits that there was no delay in lodging the complaint. The complaint
was filed immediately after the petitioners denied the transaction, as has
been pleaded in the petition of compliant. Moreover if the opposite party had
actually fabricated/manufactured the outstanding invoices and delivery
challan as has been argued by the petitioners, then the opposite patty would
have done so for a period for which he would still have limitation to institute
a civil claim. The petitioners herein intentionally did not plea the ground of
part payment, past business relationship in quashing petition but they
based their argument on the plea of no transaction. Therefore civil remedy
co-exists with criminal prosecution where intention is dishonest. Though
learned counsel for the petitioner argued much that they did not have any
intention to cheat and that the invoices are forged or deliveries never
occurred, but these are all factual defences and cannot stand as a ground
for quashing. Court at this stage cannot take any decision without going for
evidence as to whether mens rea was present or not. Delivery challans,
transport L/R, Vat, Stock record, conduct are adequate at this stage in
support of contention of the opposite party about the impugned transaction
and therefore she prayed for dismissal of the instant Revisional Application
proceeding and also for vacating the interim orders. She also filed CRAN 10
of 2025 seeking invocation of power under section 340 of the Cr.P.C for
recording a prima facie satisfaction of false statement on oath and prays for
9
2026:CHC-AS:619
necessary direction for prosecution against the deponent and thepetitioners.
Decision
14. On perusal of the record it appears that court below issued process
against the petitioners on the basis of written complaint, where allegations
ascribed against them inter alia are as follows:-
(i) accused no. 2 to 5 being the mastermind showing there imaginary
portal convinced the complainant to supply its electrical materials
and to that effect generated inducement in their mind by virtue of
various imaginary portal to have a good business and margin
which convinced the complainant to entrust with the electrical
materials to accused no.1, following an assurance that there shall
be no difficulty in payment (para-3).
(ii) the complainant considering the representation inducement and
deceptions as true and genuine and with a hope to have a good
business in long term time to time parted with its materials total
valued Rs. 11,15,297/- on and from 21.01.20215 to 22.08.2015
and despatched the same which were time to time delivered to
the accused persons and/or their representatives from
Murshidabad Road Transport and the same was received by the
accused persons.(para).
(iii) Inspite of repeated demand for the payment the accused no. 2 to
5 verbally intimated the complainant that due to financial crisis
they could not arrange the funds and also intimated that cheques
for the payment will be send but inspite of several visits and
demand, the accused persons failed and neglected to send the
cheques and ultimately denied the transaction and refused to
make payment of Rs.11,15,397/-. The complainant to his utter
surprise came to learn that the accused persons misappropriated
the sale proceeds of the materials amongst themselves and
created story of internal dispute between the directors and the
accused no,.1 to defraud the complainant.(para-6,7,8)
(iv) The complainant would not have parted with and or entrusted
with the valuables and also would not have given the accused
persons liberty to consume such period but to file case under the
appropriate provision of law. (para-9)
(v) From the aforesaid it is crystal clear that the accused no. 2 to 5
being the directors/executive of accused no. 1 being merchant
and mastermind of the commission of offence by entering into
criminal conspiracy with others, criminally misappropriated the
prices of the materials, so entrusted upon accused no.1 and has
caused wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the
complainant company to the tune of Rs. 11,15,297/- and thereby
they have committed the offence punishable under the provision
of section 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.(para-12)
15. Complainant in his initial deposition on 15.05.2018 has also stated
that accused no. 2 to 5 who are the directors and executives of accused no.
10
2026:CHC-AS:619
1 being the master mind showed their imaginary portal and thereby
convinced him and other staff to supply electrical materials. The accused
persons also convinced him to entrust with electrical materials in favour of
accused no.1, stating that payment will be cleared on time. He further
stated that as per representation, inducements and deceptions made by the
accused persons as true and genuine, the complainant entrusted/parted
with electrical materials total valued at Rs. 11,15,297/- on and from
21.01.2015 to 22.08.2015 against 17 invoices and despatched the materials
and delivered the same to the accused persons or their representatives from
the Murshidabad Road Transport. The accused persons did not pay the said
amount inspite of repeated demand and had it been known that all
representation and inducements were false, he would not have parted
and/or entrusted with the said valuables
16. The other witness Rabi Kumar Patwari, who used to look after the said
business had stated that he is conversant with the facts and circumstances
of the case. The accused persons with the motive of cheating had made false
and fraudulent representation that they will make payment in time and
procured the electrical materials. He also stated that in utter surprise they
later on came to know that the accused persons having intention of cheating
and criminal breach of trust have criminally misappropriated the price of
the materials and have caused wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful
loss to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 11,15,297/-.
17. The petitioner/accused person at the time of filing the instant
Application inter alia averred in the grounds for preferring the revisional
application as follows:-
11
2026:CHC-AS:619
(i) The petitioners are in noway involve with the commission of the
alleged offence since the petitioner was never in any business dealings
with the opposite party and as such no materials have been found to
show any direct nexus of the petitioners with the alleged commission of
offence.
(ii) The petitioner has neither committed any fraudulent act or
deception upon the complainant as they are had been no such
transaction or supply of materials from the complainant to the petitioner
(iii) Petitioners on being informed about the alleged outstanding
payment had been agreeable to even pay the same if only bills or
challans authenticated by authorized representative of the mills were
furnished. But the complainant could not furnish any legitimate
bills/challans not even lorry receive or delivery acknowledgements to the
petitioner to prove the existence of any transaction and the petitioners
was provided with a mere list of invoice from the record of the complaint
without any validation or authentication whatsoever which is in actuality
a concocted and fake list as the petitioners never entered into business
with them.
(iv) The petitioners were willing to pay legitimate dues, however, no
such proof was provide to them and the petitioners on perusal of their
own records could not find any relevant record to show that there was
any transaction as claimed by the complainant.
18. However when OP complainant filed affidavit in opposition along with
outstanding invoices dated 21.01.2015 to 22.08.2015 with corresponding
delivery challans bearing transporter endorsement of Murshidabad State
Transport, banks statements, ledger extracts, reconciliation and
confirmation of accounts dated 01.04.2015, reflecting existence of the
commercial transactions between the parties and the correspondences dated
15.02.2017 and 24.02.2017 issued by the petitioners by which the
petitioners returned all the bills, on the pretext that they were not in proper
manner, the petitioners herein filed affidavit in reply, where they have
shifted their stand and stated that alleged invoices lack the acknowledgment
of the petitioner company and there is no official seal of the company or the
signature of its representative and bears no details of despatch, which
falsifies the bills and therefore the alleged invoices have been manufactured
and created by the opposite party with the ill motive to extort pecuniary
benefits for the petitioner. The petitioners were never in business with the
12
2026:CHC-AS:619
opposite party at that point of time during which the supply and the delivery
has alleged to have been made It has also been stated in the said affidavit
in reply that even if it is taken to be true that at same point of time the
petitioner company was dealing with the opposite party, the fact that the
complaint was filed for alleged non-payment from 21.01.2015 to
22.08.2015, and the bank statement show payments made in 2014 which
has got no connection with the alleged impugned transaction. The tax
invoice challans of the opposite party for the period 2013 to 2014, which has
been annexed, has also got no relevance with the impugned transaction.
19. It further appears that in the same revisional application the
petitioners have stated that they had never any business dealings with the
opposite party and had neither purchased any materials from them nor
placed any order to them, but in a different paragraph the same petitioners
stated that they are eager to make payment of outstanding legitimate bills.
Therefore only after affidavit in opposition filed by the opposite party with
copies of outstanding invoices, the petitioners shifted their stand from “there
was never any business between the parties” to there being no business in
connection with the ‘supply in question’. It also appears that their such
stand that ‘there was never any business transaction’ can hardly be said to
be a mistake because it appears from the interim order dated 13th March,
2019 passed by this High Court that the petitioners were granted the
interim stay on the basis of arguments that there was no business
transaction between the petitioner and the opposite party, which were
subsequently extended from time to time.
13
2026:CHC-AS:619
20. Now in order to constitute offence of cheating following ingredients are
required’
(i) Deception of any person
(ii) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any
property
(iii) To consent that any person shall retain any property and finally
intentionally inducing that persons to do or omit to do anything
which he would not do or omit.
21. In this context it is also relevant to quote the internal aid available by
way of illustration (f) and (g) to section 415 which are as follows:-
(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money
that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him
money. A not intending to repay it. A cheats.
(g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a
certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and
thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such
delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to
deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not
deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of
contract.
22. The complainant in the complaint has stated that he supplied the
goods by 17 invoices worth Rs. 11,15,297/- between 21.01.2015 to
22.08.2015 delivered via Murshidabad Road Transport which has been
denied by the petitioner. The complainant also averred that repeated
demands were made but the petitioners avoided their liability by several
excuses and thereafter denied all the transactions. However, the annexure
filed by the opposite party along with their affidavit in opposition, prima
facie discloses business transaction between the parties. Learned Counsel
for the opposite party strenuously argued that petitioner had maliciously
14
2026:CHC-AS:619
returned all the bills issued and shared by the opposite party which makes
clear inference that the petitioners’ intention to cheat existed since
inception, which is also evident from the subsequent conduct and
circumstances and if such conduct is looked into, there are sufficient
grounds to infer about the mens rea of the accused persons. He further
pointed out that it is settled law that establishing deception by express
words is not always possible but the subsequent conduct of the accused and
circumstances can be looked into.
23. It is true that petitioners raised dispute after denying transaction that
bills challans do not bear signature by an authorized signatory of the mill.
OP however, argued that such demand of petitioner in support of
genuineness of bill is a manufactured unilateral standard being imposed by
the petitioners. Issues such as whether the deliveries occurred, whether
transporter’s endorsement are genuine, whether VAT/Stock Ledger tally
with the entries, whether petitioners initially denied all dealings through the
correspondences are all triable issues requiring evidence and cross
examination.
24. In the affidavit in reply the petitioners no doubt have produced old
invoices issued by the complainant bearing the seal and signature of the
accused, in contrast to the impugned outstanding invoices but in this
context learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the invoices
previously issued by the opposite party/complainant were all delivered to
the petitioner over the years and the petitioners are in exclusive control of
its internal stamps, seals, signature mechanism etc. and the petitioners had
the opportunity to fabricate self-serving endorsement on any past invoice.
15
2026:CHC-AS:619
25. In this context learned counsel for the opposite party also relied upon
a judgment of Delhi High Court passed in CM 1185 of 2021 (Flexed
Studios Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gravity Entertainment Pvt. Ltd dated 20.12.2021)
where the court held that in modern day business, all communications are
generally made through emails invoices and are routinely sent through
email and such invoices are not signed by the parties. Therefore there is no
such thing as “the original of the invoice”.
26. Moreover while entertaining a petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C,
the materials furnished by the defence cannot be looked into and the
defence materials can be entertained at the time of trial, unless they are
unimpeachable in character. As held in Ravindra Kumar Madanlal
Goenka & Another Vs. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Pvt. Ltd.,
reported in (2009) 11 SCC 529, the defence case is required to be
considered at a later stage and not at this stage. The petitioners would have
ample opportunity to raise all the issues urged in this Application at an
appropriate later stage, where such pleas would be and could be property
analysed and scrutinised.
27. There is always a distinction between a case where there is no legal
evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the
accusations made and a case where there is legal evidence which on
appreciation may or may not support the accusation. At this stage High
Court is not supposed to embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in
question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it,
accusation would not be sustained. That would obviously be the function of
the trial court.
16
2026:CHC-AS:619
28. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and on
perusal of the materials as discussed above, it appears that a prima facie
case has been made out against the accused which is required to be decided
by conducting a proper trial. At the stage of considering application under
section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not supposed to decide whether the
documents submitted by the OP in support of delivery of goods is genuine or
false, to form an opinion whether on the basis of the allegations an offence
alleged has been made out or not.
29. It cannot be said at this stage also that the dispute between the
parties is only civil in nature. This is a case where serious allegations have
been made against the petitioners, in connection with deception at the
inception. Just because the allegation involved the factum of recovery of
money, it cannot be concluded that the complaint is purely civil in nature,
when other serious allegations prima facie attract the penal provisions.
30. In this context reliance is placed upon the judgment of Lal Moni Devi
Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2001) 2 SCC 17 para 8 as
follows:-
“8. There could be no dispute to the proposition that if the complaint does
not make out an offence it can be quashed. However, it is also settled law
that facts may give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence.
Merely because a civil claim is maintainable does not mean that the criminal
complaint cannot be maintained. In this case, on the facts, it cannot be
stated, at this prima facie stage, that this is a frivolous complaint. The High
Court does not state that on facts no offence is made out. If that be so, then
merely on the ground that it was a civil wrong the criminal prosecution could
not have been quashed.”
31. Therefore even if the facts narrated in the present complaint have the
origin of a commercial transaction, that hardly stands as a ground for
holding that the offence of cheating has not been made out from such
transactions. In Rajest Bajaj Vs. State of NCT Delhi, reported in (1999) 3
17
2026:CHC-AS:619
SCC 259, Supreme Court has made it clear that infact many a cheatings
were committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions.
The relevant paragraph of the said judgment may be reproduced below:-
11. The crux of the postulate is the intention of the person who induces the
victim of his representation and not the nature of the transaction which
would become decisive in discerning whether there was commission of
offence or not. The complainant has stated in the body of the complaint that
he was induced to believe that the respondent would honour payment on
receipt of invoices, and that the complainant realised later that the intentions
of the respondent were not clear. He also mentioned that the respondent
after receiving the goods had sold them to others and still he did not pay the
money. Such averments would prima facie make out a case for investigation
by the authorities.
32. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. makes it clear that such inherent power of
High Court are meant to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection
when there is reason to believe that the process of law is being misused to
harass a citizen. It is well settled that proceeding against an accused at the
initial stage can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the
papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In the instant
case this court having carefully considered the submission of the counsel for
both the parties and on perusal of the record, with specific reference to the
contents of the complaints and the annexing documents, finds prima facie
ingredients required for constitution of the offence, alleged in the complaint
and therefore allowing the proceeding to continue against the petitioners
would not amount to an abuse of process of court, to harass the petitioners.
The materials in the record do not pertain to a purely commercial
transaction. The subsequent conduct of the petitioners prima facie shows
that they had no intention of making the full payment, thus the inducement
is apparent, right from the inception of the business relationship between
the parties. The subsequent conduct of changing stand from “never had any
18
2026:CHC-AS:619
transaction” to “transaction pertains to present dispute” shows prima facie
dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners. In any case it cannot be
said that no offence has been made out from the allegations levelled in the
written complaint. It is also pertinent to note that in the reply sent to the
notice of the opposite party no.2 making demand of the amount, the
petitioners have not only challenged the genuineness of bill but also delivery
of goods and when subsequently bills were sent to them, they had returned
the same, disputing its genuineness and called those bills as manufactured
and concocted. Therefore, from the averments made in the affidavit in reply,
it can very well be said that it is not a simpliciter breach of contract or
merely a civil dispute, but some criminal elements is definitely involved
therein.
33. As observed by the supreme Court in Shivanarayan Kabra Vs. State
of Madras reported in AIR 1967 SC 986, it is not necessary that a false
pretence should be made in express words by the accused. It may be
inferred from all the circumstances, including the conduct of the accused in
obtaining the property. In the true nature of things, it is not always possible
to prove dishonest intention by any direct evidence. It can be proved by a
number of circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn.
34. For the reasons stated above, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, I have no other option but to come to a conclusion that
this is not a fit case where the criminal proceeding can be quashed invoking
this court’s jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore the
instant application is liable to be dismissed.
35. CRR 2107 of 2018 thus stands dismissed.
19
2026:CHC-AS:619
36. So far as the connected application being CRAN 10 of 2025 which
pertains to prayer for preliminary enquiry under section 379 of BNSS and to
furnish security and to register a complaint in writing for sending the same
to magistrate for adducing evidence, I find that the allegation of suppression
of materials fact which can amount to fraud and/or alleged false statements
on affidavit which may amount to contempt of court and/or interference
with the administration of justice, which warrants prosecution under
section 340 of the Cr.P.C. shall be kept open for future consideration after
adjudication of the issues but at this stage since such allegations are at a
pre mature stage, it would be too early to draw a proceeding under the
aforesaid provisions and therefore it can be reopened for future
consideration, if situation demands.
Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this Judgment, if applied for, be given
to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(DR. AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.)
20
