IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Present:- HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS). CRR NO.320 of 2004 KAUSHIK CHATTERJEE & ANR. VS. ARUN KUMAR SAHA For the Petitioners : Mr. Soumopriya Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Kausik De, Adv. Mr. Raghav Munshi, Adv. Ms. Mohini Majumdar, Adv. Ms. Ayelita Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Adrish Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Anamika Pandey, Adv. Last heard on : 07.09.2026 Judgement on : 07.09.2026 Uploaded on : 10.09.2026 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J. :- 1. The instant Criminal Revisional application has been filed for quashing of proceedings in C.R. Case no.176 of 2023 pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kharagpur, Paschim Medinipur under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The fact of the case in a nutshell is that a complaint was lodged alleging the present petitioners as an accused with an allegation of commission of offence as stated above. 3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that initially an agreement was entered into a Stockiest Agreement on 3.4.2023 with IFB Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “IFIL”) and was granted distributorship for the auto components in the nature of chain and sprocket kit under the brand name IFB ULTRAMILES manufactured by IFIL for East Medinipore and West Medinipore, restricted to 100 retailers and two sales persons. Within few months IFIL found that the opposite party did not adhere to the distributorship and stockiest policies of the IFIL and was selling its products at an underpriced rate and also outside the jurisdiction of distribution. IFIL’s family decided not to accept any order from the opposite party and restricted its web portal window for the opposite party. 4. The complaint petition was filed on November 21, 2023 by the opposite party alleging termination of the distributorship without assigning any reason. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kharagpur issued process against the petitioners. The petitioner has filed this revisional application for quashing the said proceeding. 5. None appears in this case to represent the opposite party despite service being effected. 6. The bone of contention of the learned advocate representing the petitioner is that no ingredients are there to attract section 420/406/506 of the IPC even if the contents of the complaint is considered in its entirety. There is a basic difference between the breach of terms and conditions and any fraudulent intention from the inception. Page 3 of 9 7. In this regard, learned advocate for the petitioners has relied upon the decision S. W. Palanitkar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr.1 8. It is further pointed out that in addition, the learned Magistrate failed to apply his judicial mind as on the date fixed for SA for examining complainant the Learned Court only heard the learned advocate for the complainant and passed the order issuing process when it is settled proposition of law that issuing process is a serious matter. 9. The further argument advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioners that it is settled law after the decision of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.2, both the charges under Sections 420 and 406 cannot go simultaneously but the Learned Court failed to consider that aspect at the time of issuance of process. Accordingly, he prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings before the learned Court below. 10. Heard the submission made by the learned Advocate representing the petitioners. On perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that the agreement was entered into between the parties on April 3, 2023 with a target for the year of 2023-2024. The contents of the written complaint itself manifest that as per the terms and conditions since April 26, 2023 till July 28, 2023 the complainant was working with them in advance payment policy system. In addition, on April 26, 2023 the complainant purchased the company’s automobiles products amounting to Rs.3,63,671/- and the complainant paid the aforesaid 1 (2002) 1 SCC 241 2 (2024) 10 SCC 690 amount to the said company i.e. IFB Global Limited on April 28, 2023 as per the terms and conditions. The complaint further disclose that the complainant had a business turn over with the aforesaid auto parts company, i.e., IFB Global Limited for more than Rs.12,000,00/- including GST in terms and conditions of their company. However he felt aggrieved as the Company’s Sales Manager, without giving any prior notice to the complainant suddenly cancel his dealership without any sufficient reason. Several emails were sent but the petitioners did not give reply and he sent legal notice and thereafter the petitioners abused the complainant with filthy languages. 11. Therefore, from the above factual matrix prima facie no iota of materials can be found to show that there was any intention of the present petitioners either to induce the present opposite party from the inception or to invest or had any mens rea since the inception of the agreement to cheat the opposite party. The four corners of the complaint only reflects that no sufficient reason has been assigned by the petitioners for not accepting his order. It further transpires from the complaint itself that the grievance of the petitioners started when without giving any prior notice and the dealership was cancelled. In this regard, it is pertinent to give cursory look at the agreement where in the clause it is very clearly mentioned that the company may suo motu without explanation terminate if company management feels that the stockist activity is prejudicial to the interest of the company. 12. It is evident from the contents of the complaint that because of such termination, no wrongful gain or wrongful loss occurred to any of the parties. No property of the opposite party was lying under the custody of the petitioners at any point of time for which there can be a criminal breach of trust as alleged to have happened. Therefore, prima facie as it can be found from the content of the complaint that sudden termination of the agreement which was within the power and authority of the petitioners in terms of the said agreement as discussed above, it cannot be said that there was any intention or mens rea on the part of the petitioners to deceive from the inception which can be said as a fraudulent intention. 13. In the decision of S. W. Palanitkar and Others (supra), the difference between Sections 405 and 406 were discussed as well as the duty of the learned Magistrate under Section 200 Cr. P. C. how to be exercised. It was further held that the fraudulent and the dishonest intention should be exercised in order to make out an offence of cheating, and that:- “ the ingredients of an offence of cheating are: (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by (ii)(b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the fact in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar3 and the observation made in paragraph 15 which is as follows: “15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed.” It is no more res integra that to secure conviction of a person for the offence of cheating, mens rea on the part of the accused must be established. In the decision as relied upon, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the observation made in Mahadeo Prasad v. State of West Bengal reported in4 “that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was offered.” 15. On cumulative assessment of the entire factual matrix clubbed with the law laid down in this regard, it clearly demonstrates that lack of 3 (2000) 4 SCC 168 4 AIR 1954 SC 724 ingredients to attract any of the allegations leveled against the petitioners or any mens rea on the part of the petitioners to defraud or deceive the opposite party from the inception, neither it demonstrates that any property was entrusted with the petitioner for which there will be said to be criminal breach of trust. 16. On the contrary, it can be found that on the basis of agreement the opposite party did a good business and had a turnover of Rs.12,00,000/-. It may be that he was not satisfied with the sudden termination of the agreement, but for that reasons a criminal complaint is not maintainable against the petitioners for the offence committed under Sections 420/406. No such averment can also be found from the four corners of the written complaint which can attract the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 506. 17. It is pertinent to mention herein that the information slip annexed with the petition primarily shows that it was intimated to the petitioners that no S. A. was done as on January 16, 2024. In the certified copy of the order dated December 27, 2023, it is seen that the date was fixed for S.A and the learned Court only heard the learned advocate for the complainant, perused the statement of the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the materials on record and arrived at a conclusion that the complainant was able to make out sufficient ground for commission of offences as mentioned above and issued process against the accused person, which means that the complainant was not examined and only his advocate was heard which is absolutely contrary to the provision under Section 200 Cr. P. C. which enables the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence made out after examining complainant and his witness, if any, after ascertaining whether any prima facie case is made out against the accused and to issue process. 18. Therefore, it goes without saying that the learned Magistrate by passing a mechanical order directed to issue process without considering seriousness of issuing process itself. In the case of Umashankar Yadav & Anr. vs State of Uttar Pradesh ,through Chief Secretary & Anr.5 it was held that:- “summoning of an accused is a serious matter which affects liberty and dignity of the individual concerned .Judicial intervention under Section 482 Cr.P.C to weed out vexatious proceedings is of pivotal importance in order to protect individuals from untelling harassment and misery and to ensure unmerited prosecution do not crowd overflowing dockets of criminal courts and yield space for deserving cases.” 19. In the above facts and circumstances of the case and considering all aspect, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case where this Court must exercise the power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. in order to prevent abuse of the process of law. 20. Hence, the instant criminal revisional application is hereby allowed. The entire proceeding being CR Case no. 176 of 2023 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kharagpur, Paschim 5 2025 INSC 653 Medinipur under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is hereby quashed against the petitioners. 21. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned court by the department at an early date for information and necessary compliance. 22. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 23. Criminal Section is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. [CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]