Page No.# 1/14 GAHC010103462023 2026:GAU-AS:13037 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./197/2023 TARAT ASSOCIATES REP. BY SRI NRIPENDRA TARAT, DR. J.C. DAS ROAD PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI-1. VERSUS MANASHI DUTTA AND 2 ORS DIRECTORS OF MANASHI MEDI EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED C/O CRITICAL CARE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH INST, LOKHRA CHARIALI, NH-37, NEAR CENTRAL JAIL GUWAHATI-781040 2:DR. NILUTPAL SUT DIRECTORS OF MANASHI MEDI EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED C/O CRITICAL CARE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH INST LOKHRA CHARIALI NH-37 NEAR CENTRAL JAIL GUWAHATI-781040 3:MR BISHAL MANDAL DIRECTORS OF MANASHI MEDI EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED C/O CRITICAL CARE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH INST LOKHRA CHARIALI NH-37 NEAR CENTRAL JAIL GUWAHATI-78104 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D K BAGCHI, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. T DEURI (R1, R2, R3), MS. A DAS (R1, R2) BEFORE Page No.# 2/14 HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 08-09-2026 Heard Mr. D K Bagchi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T Deuri, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This is an application u/s 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC against the order dated 22.03.2023 passed by the Court of JMFC, First Class, Kamrup (M) in C.R. Case No. 90C/2023 whereby the learned JMFC had dismissed the complaint without any cognizance. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Bagchi that the present petitioner is a pharmaceutical distributor under the name & style of Tarat Associates which is represented by the authorized representative Sri Nripendra Tarat. The respondents/accused are the Directors of Manash Medi Equipments Private Limited having its office within the premise of Critical Care Hospital & Research Institute, Lokhra Chariali. The petitioner and respondents had a business transaction and thereby the complainant being pharmaceutical distributor was supplying medicines to the respondents from various brands and products from time to time. But, some payments were due to the present petitioner. However, on a good faith and assurance that respondents will return the outstanding amount within a reasonable period of time, the petitioner supplied medicines from different brand to the respondents from time to time and payments were initially made on raising bills. But, subsequently several bills were pending and in spite of repeated request the payments were not made by the respondents. At present the total outstanding is amounts to Rs. 5,70,933/-. The petitioner not only made request for the payment but, made several phone calls and emails were also Page No.# 3/14 sent apart from personal visits for making payment, but all the accused/persons with common intention for deceiving the petitioner did not respond to the said request and emails and thereby dishonestly caused wrongful loss to the petitioner. 4. Mr. Bagchi further submitted that the medicines were supplied by the petitioner company as per the inducement made by the respondents and that the respondents has an intention of cheating the petitioner and thus in spite of several requests the respondents never paid the outstanding amount of Rs. 5,70,933/-. Some of the bills along with the emails etc. are also annexed along with the petition to substantiate the plea of the petitioner about the demands made by the petitioner for the payment of the outstanding dues. Finding no other alternative the petitioner had approached the Court of learned CJM with a complaint which is accordingly registered as C.R. Case No. 90C/2023 u/s 420/34 IPC and same was transferred to the Court of learned JMFC for disposal. But, only recording the statement of the complainant the learned Trial Court below had dismissed the complaint case finding that there is no ingredients to take cognizance u/s 420 of IPC and also expressed the view that it is purely a commercial transaction and civil dispute. On being dissatisfied with the said order passed by the learned JMFC on 22.03.2023, the petitioner had approached this Court with the present revision petition. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Bagchi that in the complaint petition it is very clearly mentioned as to how the respondents had induced the petitioner for supply of the medicine with an intention of cheating, the petitioner on the other hand with good faith and as per the inducement made by the respondents, made the supply of medicine. But, subsequently in spite of several demands the respondents never made any response to their demands and thus cheated the Page No.# 4/14 present petitioner. There is a huge amount of outstanding of Rs. 5,70,933/- is still pending. But, in spite of receiving emails and the letters, the respondents did not return their due and thus cheated the present petitioner. 6. Mr. Bagchi further submitted that after transfer of the case, the learned Trial Court below recorded only the statement of the complainant. But, without making any further enquiry the case was dismissed u/s 190 of Cr.PC. After making an enquiry, if the Court did not find any cognizable offence, the complaint ought to have dismissed u/s 203 of Cr.PC but, the case has been dismissed u/s 190 Cr.PC without taking cognizance and without even recording the statement of the supporting witnesses. 7. Mr. Bagchi further submitted that admittedly there was a business transaction/commercial transaction between the parties. But, that cannot be the sole ground for dismissal of the complaint when there are sufficient criminal ingredients to prove that there was an intention of cheating by the respondents from very inception of the agreement as well as there are sufficient materials that the medicines were supplied only on the inducement made by the respondents. Accordingly, he submitted that the case may apparently looked to be a civil in nature wherein a commercial transaction is involved but, that cannot be the sole ground for dismissing a petition and Court is to see as to whether any criminal ingredient is available to take cognizance of a case which may be basically on commercial transaction. In that context, Mr. Bagchi also relied on decision of Supreme Court reported in (2013) 2 SCC 801 [Arun Bhandari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others] and relied on the paragraph nos. 26, 28, 29 and 31 which read as under:- “26. At this stage, we may usefully note that sometimes a case may apparently look to be of civil nature or may involve a commercial transaction but such civil disputes or commercial Page No.# 5/14 disputes in certain circumstances may also contain ingredients of criminal offences and such disputes have to be entertained notwithstanding they are also civil disputes. In this context, we may reproduce a passage from Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another : - “8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. (See G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.[14] and Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd.[17])” 28. In Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi), while dealing with a case where the High Court had quashed an F.I.R., this Court opined that the facts narrated in the complaint petition may reveal a commercial transaction or a money transaction, but that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. Proceeding further, the Bench observed thus: - “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.” 29. We have referred to the aforesaid decisions in the field to highlight about the role of the Court while dealing with such issues. In our considered opinion the present case falls in the category which cannot be stated at this stage to be purely civil in nature on the basis of the admitted documents or the allegations made in the FIR or what has come out in the investigation or for that matter what has been stated in the protest petition. We are disposed to think that prima facie there is allegation that there was a guilty intention to induce the complainant to part with money. We may hasten to clarify that it is not a case where a promise initially made could not lived up to subsequently. It is not a case where it could be said that even if the allegations in entirety are accepted, no case is made out. Needless to emphasise, the High Court, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the CrPC, has to adopt a very cautious approach. 31. In R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and others[22], after referring to the decisions in Hamida v. Rashid[22] and State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo[23], this Court eventually culled out the following propositions:- Page No.# 6/14 “15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are: (1). The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2). For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3). Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4). If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.” 8. Mr. Bagchi further submitted relying on another decision of Supreme Court reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696 wherein the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC is being discussed and wherein it has been held that :- “ An offence of cheating would be constituted when the accused has fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. A pure and simple breach of contract does not constitute an offence of cheating.” 9. The ingredients of cheating of Section 420 IPC are: “(i) Deception of any persons; (ii) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property; or (iii) To consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit.” 10. Accordingly it is submitted by Mr. Bagchi that in the present case also there are sufficient ingredients to fulfill Section 420 IPC wherein the present respondents had the intention of deceiving the petitioner and thus they induced Page No.# 7/14 for delivery of the medicines and after supply of huge quantity of medicines, the respondents did not make any payment and thus cheated the petitioner. But, the learned Trial Court below did not consider these aspects of the case and had dismissed the case only with the observation that there is no ingredient to fulfill Section 420 IPC and it is a case of commercial dispute. Mr. Bagchi accordingly submitted that the order dated 22.03.2023 may be set aside and quashed and case may be remanded back to the learned Trial Court below with a direction for taking cognizance of the case. 11. Mr. Deuri, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned Trial Court below had rightly passed the order after recording the statement of the complainant as PW-1 vis-à-vis on perusal of the entire complaint filed by the petitioner. Thus, there is no need of any interference in the order passed by the learned Trial Court below dismissing the case of the present petitioner. Mr. Deuri laid stress on some paragraphs of order passed by the learned Trial Court below, which is as under:- “Moreover the complainant has clearly stated in his statement recorded u/s 200 CrPC that he has filed this case so that he can get the money. He has also stated that he has not approached the Civil Court as accused persons have cheated him. But the essential ingredients of cheating is found to be absent in the complaint and his statement recorded u/s 200 CrPC. Learned Counsel for the complainant has submitted that facts of the instant case discloses a cognizable offence u/s 420 IPC and in support of his submission he has furnished one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 3191. I have gone through the said judgment and I find that the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed on Section 482 CrPC. In the said judgment it was also pointed out that "if the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue." Page No.# 8/14 In certain kind of deviant action, liability of person lies in both criminal law and civil law. However as per my considered view such deviant action must disclose a dispute of civil nature or disclose commission of offence. If the alleged action does not disclose commission of offence, the criminal liability would not be attracted. The allegation made by the complainant does not prima facie disclose commission of any offence but it discloses a dispute which is of civil nature. Adequate remedies are available to the complainant under civil law for addressing the grievances of the complainant.” 12. Mr. Deuri accordingly submitted that the learned Trial Court below rightly held that the allegation brought in the petition as well as the statement made by the complainant does not disclose any commission of offence nor there is any ingredient to take cognizance u/s 420 of IPC rather it discloses a dispute which is civil in nature and thus adequate remedies are available for the complainant under the civil law and he can agitate his grievances before the appropriate civil forum. Mr. Deuri further submitted that in order to apply Section 420 IPC, namely, cheating, dishonest inducement for delivery of property is required which are also the ingredients to fulfill Section 420 IPC. But, in the present case there is no such ingredients to take cognizance against the respondents u/s 420 IPC and thus the learned Trial Court below had rightly passed the order which needs no interference. To substantiate his plea Mr. Deuri also relied on a decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR 2023 SC 228 : AIROnline 2023 SC 3 [Deepak Gaba and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another] and basically relied on paragraphs 16 & 17 of the said judgment which reads as under:- “16. In order to apply Section 420 of the IPC, namely cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, the ingredients of Section 415 of the IPC have to be satisfied. To constitute Page No.# 9/14 an offence of cheating under Section 415 of the IPC, a person should be induced, either fraudulently or dishonestly, to deliver any property to any person, or consent that any person shall retain any property. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the intentional inducement of doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do, if she were not so deceived. Thus, the sine qua non of Section 415 of the IPC is “fraudulence”, “dishonesty”, or “intentional inducement”, and the absence of these elements would debase the offence of cheating.11 Explaining the contours, this Court in Mohd. Ibrahim and Another v. State of Bihar and Others12, observed that for the offence of cheating, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should also have dishonestly adduced the person deceived to deliver any property to a person; or to make, alter, or destroy, wholly or in part, a valuable security, or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. 17. In the present case, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 read with Section 415 of the IPC are absent. The pre- summoning evidence does not disclose and establish the essential ingredients of Section 415 of the IPC. There is no assertion, much less legal evidence, to submit that JIPL had engaged in dishonesty, fraud, or intentional inducement to deliver a property. It is not the case of respondent no. 2 - complainant that JIPL had tried to deceive them, either by making a false or misleading representation, or by any other action or omission; nor is it their case that JIPL had offered any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver a property. As such, given that the ingredients of Section 415 of the IPC are not satisfied, the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is not made out.” 13. Mr. Deuri further submitted that the petitioner had approached the criminal court only to get a quick order or settlement and thus a civil dispute/commercial dispute has given a criminal colour. In this context also he cited another decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR 2021 SC 5298: AIROnline 2021 SC 936 [Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka and Others] and 42 & 45 of the said judgment read as under:- “42. It was also observed:- “13. 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….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.” 45. Applying this dictum to the instant factual matrix, it can be safely concluded that the present Page No.# 10/14 case clearly falls within the ambit of first, third and fifth category of the seven categories enlisted in the above said judgment. The case therefore warrants intervention by this Court, and the High Court has erred in dismissing the petition filed by the Appellants under section 482 CrPC. We find that there has been attempt to stretch the contours of a civil dispute and thereby essentially impart a criminal color to it.” 14. Citing the above referred judgment it is submitted by Mr. Deuri that it is purely a commercial transaction/civil dispute and by giving criminal colour a complaint case has been lodged by the petitioner, which is accordingly dismissed by the learned Trial Court below making the observation that there is no ingredient to fulfill Section 420 of the IPC, rather it is purely a civil dispute. Hence, there is no need of any interference of this Court and the order of dismissal is rightly passed by the learned Court below. 15. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and also perused the case record and the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court below. It is a case of the petitioner that being a pharmaceutical distributor of the company, namely, Tarat Associates he entered into an agreement with the respondents who are the Directors of Manash Medi Equipments Private Limited and as per the said agreement there was a business transaction whereby the complainant had supplied medicines of various products from various brands from time to time and initially some payments were also made by the respondents. But, subsequently they stopped making any payment for the supply which were made to the respondents and thus there was an outstanding of Rs. 5,70,933/- and in spite of several requests and demands the respondents did not pay any heed for the payment and for which he had to approach the Court. It is an admitted position that there was basically a commercial transaction between the parties wherein the outstanding due was more than Rs. 5 lakhs. But, from the contents of the complaint as well as from the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner it reveals that the medicines were Page No.# 11/14 supplied only as per the inducement made by the respondents from time to time and on good faith the medicines were supplied by his company. But, instead of making any payment the petitioner was cheated by the respondents and undue inducement was made for supply of the medicines and thus he filed a case u/s 420/34 IPC before the learned Trial Court below. On the other hand, it is a case of the respondents that there was admittedly a commercial transaction wherein some amount of money was due for payment. But, the said commercial transaction/civil dispute cannot be termed as a criminal dispute and there is no ingredient to attract Section 420 IPC. In that context the learned counsel for both sides also cited some decisions of the Apex Court. 16. It is an admitted position that there was an agreement and commercial transactions between the petitioner and the respondents, who are the distributors for medicines and subsequently the respondents stopped the payment of those supplied medicines and thus there was a huge amount of dues pending for those supplied medicines. But, it is to be seen as to whether there was any intention of the respondents to cheat the petitioner who was supplying the medicine on good faith and as per inducement made by the respondents for supply of those medicines. In the complaint, prima facie it reveals that there is an allegation of inducement made by the respondents for supply of those medicines and with an intention to cheat the petitioner, the respondents did not make any payment in spite of repeated demands and sending of emails etc. It is a settled position of law that there cannot be any criminal proceeding in a case which is basically civil in nature or which may involve a commercial transaction. But, in the same time it also cannot be denied that some commercial dispute may have some ingredient of criminal offence and in that case there cannot be any bar to proceed with a criminal case even if Page No.# 12/14 it apparently look like a civil dispute. The Apex Court in case of Arun Bhandari (supra), as relied by the petitioner has made a detailed discussion in that regard as to when a civil/commercial dispute can also have ingredients of criminal offence to proceed with the same. 17. In the present case it is also seen that the basic allegation of the petitioner is that due to the inducement made by the respondents, he continued supplying medicines to the respondents, though after making some payments, the respondents did not pay the money for supplying medicines and thus their outstanding dues was more than Rs. 5 lakhs. Thus, it is seen that prima facie there may be a case u/s 420 IPC wherein the respondents had allegedly induced the petitioner for delivery of property i.e. the medicines and thus had deceived/cheated the present petitioner. 18. The learned Trial Court below while dismissing the complaint, recorded only the statement of the PW-1 i.e. the complainant and held that the essential ingredients of cheating is missing in the present case and hence instead of taking cognizance he has dismissed the complaint. He also held that as per the complainant, he instituted the case to get the money and did not approach the civil court as the accused/person has cheated him. But, from the contents of the complaint it reveals that he brought sufficient prima facie materials as to how the respondents being the distributors of medicines had cheated him by not paying his dues and by inducing him for the supply of medicines on the basis of agreement/commercial transaction. Though the case is dismissed after recording the statement of the PW-1 but, it reveals that the complaint is sufficient to bring a prima facie case against the respondents who alleged to have cheated the complainant/the petitioner by not paying the money for the medicines he supplied only on the inducement made by the respondents. More Page No.# 13/14 so to take cognizance of any criminal proceeding, only a prima facie case is required to be established, which may also reveal from the FIR as well as in complaint petition. It is not necessary for a learned Magistrate to scrutinize all the evidence but, only requirement is a prima facie case to take cognizance. 19. In the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and others. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had expressed the view that - at the time of issuing process or taking cognizance, the Magistrate is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case is not required at the time of issuing process. In para 15 of the above referred judgment it has been held as under: “15. Further it is also well settled that at the stage of issuing process a Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case nor can the High Court go into this matter in its inherent jurisdiction which is to be sparingly used. The scope of the inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC is extremely limited — only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint — (i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the Court (ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out, and (iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.” 20. Further the respondent/accused will also get ample opportunities for their discharge, if the cognizance of the case is taken by the learned Trial Court below. But, considering all these aspects of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is a prima facie case to take cognizance against the present respondents in appropriate section of law. 21. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order of dismissal dated Page No.# 14/14 22.03.2023 passed by the learned Court of JMFC, First Class, Kamrup (M) is hereby set aside and quashed. 22. Both the parties are also hereby directed to appear before the learned Trial Court below on or before 08.10.2026 and the learned Trial Court below will accordingly record the statement of the witnesses and may take cognizance in appropriate section of law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant