IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR CRR 1357 OF 2022 CRAN 4 OF 2025 SACHIN JAISWAL AND ANR. -VS- STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. For the Petitioners : Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee Mr. S.N. Upadhyay Mr. Anurag Medi Ms. Ankita Sikdar For the State : Mr. Subir Banerjee Mr. Suman Chakraborty Reserved on : 01.09.2026 Pronounced on : 15.09.2026 UDAY KUMAR, J.: – 1. The present criminal revision application, preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C."), brings to the fore a classic and recurring instance of a civil, familial, and monetary property dispute being clothed in the artificial garb of criminality. The petitioners, who stand in a close familial relationship with the de facto complainant as nephew-in-law and niece, 2 CRR 1357 OF 2022 have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court seeking the quashing of the charge sheet arising out of Baguiati Police Station Case No. 75 of 2020 dated February 8, 2020, under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC"), corresponding to Charge Sheet No. 281 of 2020 dated July 10, 2020, currently pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat, North 24 Parganas. 2. The factual matrix unfolds in August and September 2007, when the de facto complainant, Rajesh Prasad, along with his mother, entered into a tenancy/leave and license arrangement for a residential apartment bearing Flat No. 104, Block C, measuring 911 square feet at Regent Sagar, VIP Road, Raghunathpur, Kolkata, owned by one Kundan Sanyal. Subsequently, in 2008, the original owner expressed his intention to sell the said property for INR 15,50,000/-. 3. Owing to severe business setbacks and an acute financial crunch, the complainant found himself entirely ineligible to secure a housing loan from institutional lenders. Consequently, he approached the petitioners, his niece (Prity Gupta) and nephew-in-law (Sachin Jaiswal), who enjoyed stable employment, with a proposal to procure a housing loan of INR 13,00,000/- in their names. 4. A mutual, trust-based arrangement was struck wherein the loan would stand in the petitioners' names, the flat would be registered in the name of Petitioner No. 2, and the complainant would discharge all incidental liabilities, including processing fees, registration costs, and equated monthly instalments (EMIs), with an understanding that the property 3 CRR 1357 OF 2022 would eventually be reconveyed. Pursuant thereto, a home loan of INR 12.5 lakhs was disbursed by ICICI Bank Limited, and the flat was registered. The complainant resided in the property and serviced the EMIs over a decade, totalling approximately INR 20.93 lakhs. 5. The dynamic shifted in November 2018 when the complainant and his mother decided to sell the flat for INR 38,00,000/- to finance the higher education of the complainant's daughter (M.Tech studies) and liquidate mounting personal debts (including an insurance loan of INR 9 lakhs). A prospective third-party buyer, Mrs. Peety Routh, was introduced through brokers, and she cleared the remaining home loan balance of INR 6,44,408/- directly to ICICI Bank on March 30, 2019. 6. On April 24, 2019, the parties assembled at the registration office in New Town, Rajarhat, to execute the sale deed in favour of the new buyer. The balance sale proceeds via Demand Draft No. 148960 amounting to INR 31,05,591.92/- drawn in favour of Petitioner No. 2 were handed over, after which the petitioners departed for Bangalore. 7. Although the petitioners subsequently disbursed INR 15,00,000/- in instalments via NEFT to various bank accounts of the complainant and his family members, a balance of INR 14,77,592/- remained unpaid. The petitioners withheld this remaining sum, citing pressing, pending liabilities regarding building repair charges, electricity dues, and association claims raised by the Regent Sagar Flat Owners Association. 8. Following an initial representation, the complainant moved the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., culminating in the registration of Baguiati P.S. Case No. 75 of 2020 on February 8, 2020. The police 4 CRR 1357 OF 2022 investigated the matter, recorded statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (including those of Usha Prasad and Kabita Prasad), seized relevant documents and agreements, and ultimately submitted Charge Sheet No. 281 of 2020 under Sections 420, 406, and 34 IPC on July 10, 2020, fixing the matter for charge plea. 9. Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the entire prosecution is an abuse of the process of the court. The principal contentions advanced are: i. From the very inception of the transaction in 2008, there was a total absence of fraudulent or dishonest intention, as the petitioners merely stepped forward to assist a family member by lending their creditworthiness for a housing loan. ii. More than 50% of the disputed balance (INR 15,00,000/- out of the sale proceeds) has already been remitted through banking channels, which entirely negates any criminal design. iii. The withholding of the remaining amount stems from legitimate, pressing concerns regarding outstanding society maintenance, building repair, and electricity liabilities owed to the Regent Sagar Flat Owners Association, which the complainant defaulted on. iv. A pure commercial or familial monetary dispute regarding property sale proceeds cannot be converted into a penal action for cheating and criminal breach of trust. 5 CRR 1357 OF 2022 v. The Investigating Agency acted mechanically, filing a charge sheet without proper application of mind or issuing timely compliance notices under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., and weaponizing the criminal machinery for recovery. vi. Learned counsel placed reliance on Delhi Race Club Limited and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2024) 10 SCC 690], V.Y. Jose and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another [(2009) 3 SCC 78], G. Sagar Suri and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [(2000) 2 SCC 636], Hriday Ranjan Prasad Verma and Others v. State of Bihar and Another [(2000) 4 SCC 168], and the co-ordinate bench decision of this Court in CRR No. 2577 of 2018 (Harish Bagla & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.) dated 05.12.2025. 10. Per contra, Mr. Subir Banerjee, learned counsel for the State and the private opposite party strongly supported the continuation of the criminal proceeding, submitting that: i. The petitioners misappropriated a substantial sum of money belonging to the complainant, who had diligently paid every single EMI for over ten years. ii. Taking custody of the balance sale proceeds demand draft at the Rajarhat registration office on April 24, 2019, and departing for Bangalore without settling accounts demonstrated a clear, dishonest intention of the petitioners to cheat the complainant of his rightful share of the sale proceeds. 6 CRR 1357 OF 2022 iii. Sufficiency of Police Materials: The case diary contains incriminating material, including statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (such as Usha Prasad and Kabita Prasad), seizure lists covering agreements and offer letters, and proof of statutory notices issued under Section 41A Cr.P.C., which collectively justified the submission of a charge sheet. 11. The core questions that fall for determination in this revisional application are: Firstly, Whether the essential ingredients of the offenses punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC are prima facie made out from the materials collected during investigation and the charge sheet? Secondly, Whether the dispute is fundamentally civil, familial, and monetary in nature, rendering its continuation as a criminal trial an abuse of the process of the court? 12. Having set out the foundational contours of the dispute and the competing stands canvassed by the rival parties, I now proceed to undertake a rigorous, focused, and exhaustive judicial scrutiny of first question formulated for determination in this revisional application: Whether the essential ingredients of the offenses punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC are prima facie 7 CRR 1357 OF 2022 made out from the materials collected during investigation and the resulting charge sheet? 13. To resolve this core legal issue, this Court must evaluate the statutory anatomy of the penal provisions invoked against the petitioners namely, Section 415 (punishable under Section 420) and Section 405 (punishable under Section 406) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the backdrop of the investigative record (Case Diary) and the authoritative expositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A. Statutory Anatomy and Legal Thresholds: - Section 415 / 420 IPC (Cheating): The offense of cheating requires, at its very core, a dishonest or fraudulent representation made from the very inception of a transaction (mens rea ab initio). The statutory language of Section 415 IPC mandates that whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, commits cheating. As expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hriday Ranjan Prasad Verma (supra), the distinction between a mere breach of contract and the offense of cheating depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of the inducement. If the intention was dishonest right at the inception, it may amount to cheating; however, if the intention took shape subsequently or if there is a mere failure to keep a promise, no offense of cheating is made out. 8 CRR 1357 OF 2022 Section 405 / 406 IPC (Criminal Breach of Trust): To sustain a charge under Section 406 IPC, the prosecution must legally establish: i. an entrustment of property, or dominion over property, to the accused; and ii. a subsequent dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use, or disposal of that property in violation of any direction of law or legal contract. In the absence of clear entrustment coupled with a dishonest intent to convert the property for personal use ab initio or in manifest breach of a trust reposed, criminal breach of trust cannot be casually attributed. B. Scrutiny of the Investigative Materials and Case Diary I have meticulously perused the Case Diary, including the statements of witnesses examined under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. (such as Usha Prasad and Kabita Prasad), the seizure lists covering agreements and offer letters, and the procedural history reflecting notices issued under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. 14. These materials reveal that : First, the genesis of the transaction dates back to 2008, wherein the petitioners lent their names and creditworthiness to 9 CRR 1357 OF 2022 secure a housing loan because the de facto complainant, Rajesh Prasad, was facing severe financial distress and was ineligible for institutional funding. Second, the property was registered in the name of Petitioner No. 2 (Prity Gupta), and the complainant resided therein while servicing EMIs over a period of ten years. Third, when the property was sold in 2019 for INR 38,00,000/- with the mutual consent of all parties to clear mounting debts and educational expenses, a third-party purchaser (Mrs. Peety Routh) directly cleared the remaining bank loan of INR 6,44,408/-. Fourth, the balance sale proceeds via Demand Draft amounting to INR 31,05,591.92/- were handed over to the petitioners at the registration office in Rajarhat. Crucially, it is an admitted position that out of this sum, the petitioners have already remitted INR 15,00,000/- in instalments via NEFT to various bank accounts of the complainant and his family members. 15. The essence of the prosecution case rests on the remaining balance of INR 14,77,592/-. The State and the de facto complainant argue that the petitioners' departure for Bangalore after obtaining the demand draft at the registration office demonstrates a dishonest intent from the very beginning. However, this argument collapses when juxtaposed with the subsequent banking transactions conducted by the petitioners in 10 CRR 1357 OF 2022 favour of the complainant. A person harbouring a criminal design and a dishonest intent ab initio to misappropriate funds does not remit over INR 15,00,000/- through formal banking channels (NEFT) to the complainant subsequently. 16. Furthermore, the petitioners have consistently maintained a bona fide defence that the remaining amount of the sale proceeds was withheld on account of pressing, pending liabilities, building repair charges, electricity dues, and association claims raised by the Regent Sagar Flat Owners Association (totalling substantial amounts due to defaults by the complainant). Whether these claims are tenable in a civil court is one matter, but they squarely negate the existence of mens rea, fraudulent concealment, or criminal misappropriation. 17. The danger of converting civil and commercial disputes into criminal prosecutions has been repeatedly flagged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the recent and authoritative pronouncement of Delhi Race Club Limited (supra), the Apex Court observed with deep concern at paragraphs 54: "Unfortunately, it has become a common practice for the police officers to routinely and mechanically proceed to register an FIR for both the offences, criminal breach of trust and cheating, on a mere allegation of some dishonesty or fraud, without any proper application of mind." 18. Similarly, in V.Y. Jose (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that a purely civil dispute or breach of contract cannot be given a criminal colour to exert coercive pressure, when all these ingredients 11 CRR 1357 OF 2022 are lacking, the criminal proceedings initiated against an accused are liable to be quashed. 19. When these judicial parameters are applied to the factual matrix of the present case, it becomes luminously clear that the Investigating Agency acted in a mechanical manner, filing a charge sheet without evaluating whether a civil accounting dispute over sale proceeds could legally translate into offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC. There was no dishonest inducement back in 2008 when the accommodation loan was arranged, nor was there any criminal breach of trust regarding entrusted property. The dispute is purely monetary, contractual, and familial in character. 20. In light of the aforesaid analysis of the statutory provisions, the contents of the Case Diary, and the binding enunciations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I have no hesitation in holding that the essential ingredients of the offenses punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC are not prima facie made out against the petitioners. Accordingly, the first question is answered in the negative, in favour of the petitioners. 21. Having determined the first question, that the essential foundational ingredients of the penal provisions under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC are conspicuously absent from the record, I now turn to the second and consequential question formulated for determination: Whether the dispute is fundamentally civil, familial, and monetary in nature, rendering its continuation as a criminal trial an 12 CRR 1357 OF 2022 abuse of the process of the court, thereby inviting the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.? 22. The inherent power preserved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is designed to achieve a threefold purpose: to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court, to secure the ends of justice, and to give effect to any order under the Code. While exercising this extraordinary jurisdiction, this Court does not function as a trial court evaluating evidence meticulously; rather, it performs a protective judicial audit to screen out matters where the criminal machinery is being set in motion for extraneous or civilly remediable purposes. 23. The misuse of criminal process to settle scores arising from commercial, monetary, or familial property disputes has been a matter of grave judicial concern. In the landmark and foundational ruling of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], the Hon'ble Supreme Court formulated definitive guidelines, laying down in category (7) that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides intent and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused or where it is designed to achieve a collateral civil objective, such proceedings deserve to be nipped in the bud. The co-ordinate decision of this Court in C.R.R. 2577 of 2018 (Harish Bagla & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.) relied on by the petitioners, squarely applies the aforesaid category (7) guideline to quash a criminal proceeding shrouding within its garb, a long-standing commercial debt. 13 CRR 1357 OF 2022 24. This principle was further reinforced and amplified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Sagar Suri (supra), wherein the Apex Court, at paragraph 8 of the report, eloquently cautioned: "It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a 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." 25. A holistic appraisal of the factual matrix reveals the true character of this litigation. What we have before us is not an economic offense targeting the public at large, nor a predatory fraudulent scheme hatched by strangers. Rather, the parties are bound by close familial ties, the de facto complainant being the maternal uncle of Petitioner No. 1. 26. The entire transaction commenced in 2007–2008 as a mutual, trust- based family accommodation arrangement. When the complainant faced severe financial distress and was unable to secure institutional housing finance, the petitioners extended their credit profiles, lent their names, and permitted the complainant to reside in the property while discharging EMIs. When the property was eventually sold in 2019 to finance the higher education of the complainant's daughter and clear mounting debts, the proceeds were realized, and a substantial sum of INR 15,00,000/- was duly paid over to the complainant via banking channels (NEFT). 14 CRR 1357 OF 2022 27. The remaining controversy is restricted entirely to an accounting dispute over the balance sum of INR 14,77,592/-. While the complainant asserts this sum was misappropriated, the petitioners have consistently raised a bona fide, counter-balancing defence concerning outstanding building repair charges, electricity dues, and society liabilities owed to the Regent Sagar Flat Owners Association as a consequence of the complainant's defaults. Whether these maintenance and association liabilities are legally deductible or not is a quintessential question of civil accounting, contractual adjustment, and property settlement, purely civil in its DNA. 28. When a civil or familial dispute concerning property sale proceeds and accounting differences is translated into a criminal prosecution, it results in the weaponization of the criminal justice system. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.Y. Jose (supra), a breach of a commercial or financial understanding cannot be permitted to be converted into a penal action merely to exert coercive pressure on the other side to capitulate to monetary demands. 29. The record indicates that following the financial disagreement, the criminal machinery was set in motion via a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application, culminating in a charge sheet. Furthermore, the collateral attempts to pressurize the petitioners such as circulating copies of criminal proceedings to employers and residential societies manifest an intent to use the penal process as a tool for recovery and harassment. To allow a criminal trial to proceed under these circumstances would be 15 CRR 1357 OF 2022 an unpardonable abuse of the process of the court and a travesty of justice. 30. In light of the comprehensive analysis of the facts, the nature of the familial and monetary transaction, and the binding legal precedents governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I have no hesitation in answering the second question in the affirmative, in favour of the petitioners. 31. I hold that the dispute between the parties is fundamentally civil, familial, and monetary in character, and the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners is an egregious abuse of the process of law. 32. In light of the aforesaid facts, statutory provisions, and authoritative judicial precedents, this Court arrives at the logical conclusion that: (i) The essential ingredients of the offenses punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC are entirely absent from the record, as there was no dishonest inducement ab initio nor any criminal misappropriation of entrusted property. (ii) The dispute is fundamentally an accounting and monetary disagreement arising out of a family property transaction, and permitting a criminal trial to proceed on such a foundation would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and an unwarranted weaponization of the criminal justice machinery to recover civil dues. 16 CRR 1357 OF 2022 33. Accordingly, the criminal revision application being C.R.R. No. 1357 of 2022 is hereby allowed. 34. Consequently, the impugned charge sheet being Charge Sheet No. 281 of 2020 dated July 10, 2020, arising out of Baguiati Police Station Case No. 75 of 2020 dated February 8, 2020, under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the IPC, as well as all further proceedings pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, are hereby quashed. 35. Connected application (CRAN 4/2025) is also disposed of accordingly. 36. There shall be no order as to costs. 37. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court Records be transmitted down immediately to the courts below for information and necessary compliance. 38. Case diary, be returned to the Learned Counsel for the State. 39. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)