CRR No. 3280 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

C.R.R. No. 3280 of 2022

Tigerhill Vinimay Private Limited & Ors.

Versus

Pankaj Ladia

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Anand Keshari, Adv.

Mr. Soumen Mohanty, Adv.

Mr. Ayan Poddar, Adv.

Mr. Ayaan Ahmed, Adv.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Satadru Lahiri, Adv.

Mr. Safdar Azam, Adv.

Mr. Jyotirmoy Talukder, Adv.

Heard on : 31.07.2026

Judgment on : 16.09.2026

Uploaded on : 16.09.2026

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.:-

1. By filing this Criminal Revisional application under Sections

397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), the petitioners sought for

2

CRR No. 3280 of 2022

quashing the proceeding being complaint case being C.S. 4034

of 2019 instituted under Sections 420/473/120B of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (Pankaj Ladia Vs. Tigerhill Vinimay Private

Limited & Ors.) pending before the Learned Metropolitan

Magistrate, 8

th

Court, Calcutta and setting aside all orders

passed therein.

2. The Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are Directors of Petitioner no.

1/Company, engaged in real estate business. Petitioner no. 4 is

an advocate, working as a consultant for Petitioner no. 1. Brief

facts of the case are that Petitioner no. 1, the absolute owner of

123.79 satak of land in J.L. No. 84, Mouza-Ramnagar, District

Hooghly, sought to acquire by purchasing adjoining plots to

render the holding contiguous. In August 2018, the Opposite

Party represented himself as the owner of an adjacent 179.25

decimal agricultural land in the same Mouza and offered it for

this purpose.

3. Petitioner no. 4 was instructed to conduct due diligence, where

the Opposite Party furnished only photocopies of title deeds and

the current ROR, failing to produce originals or the preceding 30

years' ROR. Pending verification, the Opposite Party sought part-

payment to secure the land against other buyers, assuring full

refund if the deal fell through. Relying on this, the petitioners

3

CRR No. 3280 of 2022

paid Rs. 1,58,45,971/- via post-dated cheque No. 816664 dated

03.09.2018 (Axis Bank, Dalhousie Branch), after refusing the

Opposite Party's demand for cash.

4. On completing due diligence, the petitioners discovered the land

was not as represented and would not achieve contiguity. They

cancelled the transaction and demanded return of the cheque,

which the Opposite Party initially agreed to but instead

deposited it. As the petitioners had already stopped

payment/withdrawn funds following cancellation, the cheque

was dishonoured with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient."

Efforts to reach the Opposite Party thereafter proved futile.

5. The Opposite Party then filed C.S. 107429 of 2018 under

Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,

before the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, and

cognizance was taken on 31.12.2018. A summon was issued by

the Learned 3

rd

Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, directing

appearance on 21.02.2019, when the petitioners appeared and

were released on bail on sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each.

6. Thereafter, the Opposite Party instituted the impugned

proceeding under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the Learned

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, being C.S. No. 4034 of

2019 under Sections 420/473/120B of the Indian Penal Code,

4

CRR No. 3280 of 2022

1860, on the self-same cause of action. The case was taken up

on 24.01.2019, when cognizance was taken, and the record was

transferred to the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8

th

Court,

Calcutta.

7. The learned Court examined the opposite party, and one Manik

Ghosal, and on 20.06.2019 passed an order issuing summons

against the petitioners. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 subsequently

surrendered and were granted bail on 21.09.2019, followed by

Petitioner No. 4, who was granted bail on 18.10.2019.

8. The petitioners' case, in essence, is that no transaction, debt, or

liability ever crystallized between the parties, given the

cancellation of the deal prior to encashment, and that the

impugned complaint under Sections 420/473/120B of IPC

represents a retaliatory and mala fide proceeding, instituted with

an ulterior and oblique motive to harass the petitioners, upon a

concocted version of the facts.

9. Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the whole case is false,

frivolous, concocted and factually incorrect. While filing the

complaint case under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., the opposite

party/de-facto complainant also suppressed the actual material

5

CRR No. 3280 of 2022

facts and circumstances with the ulterior motive to either extort

the petitioners or to harass and/or tarnish their reputation.

10. It was further submitted that the opposite party had filed this

instant case for offences punishable under Sections

420/473/120B of the IPC. However, the actual fact of the

petitioners’ case is that there were ongoing negotiations between

the petitioners and the opposite party for selling the opposite

party's land. At the time of negotiation, the opposite party had

displayed and handed over the photocopies of the title deeds and

the ROR of the Land for the purpose of examining the same

before purchase without showing the original title deeds. The

opposite party had also failed to provide the ROR and a copy of

the previous ROR, i.e., CS and RS. It is further alleged that the

opposite party had deliberately chosen to suppress the fact that

the cheque dated 03.09.2018 amounting to Rs. 1,58,45,971/-

was issued as a result of mutual understanding between the

parties and with assurance given by the opposite party, and that

he would refund or return the entire sum paid by the petitioners

without any demur in case the petitioners were not satisfied with

the right, title and interest of the opposite party over the land

and the transaction did not materialise.

6

CRR No. 3280 of 2022

11. Subsequently, upon searching and verifying the documents, the

petitioners found that the opposite party is not the actual owner

of the property which was under negotiation between the

petitioners and the opposite party. As such, the petitioners

refrained from entering into any arrangement or written

agreement with the opposite party pertaining to the said land

and asked the opposite party to cancel the deal and return the

cheque which was just given to him. There was no agreement for

sale, sale deed and/or transfer of any title deed or original

documents between the petitioners and the opposite party. The

negotiation did not materialise due to the ownership dispute.

Subsequently, despite the opposite party’s assurance, he did not

return the post-dated cheque to the petitioners; rather, he

submitted the said cheque before the bank for its encashment.

The said cheque was returned with the endorsement “FUNDS

INSUFFICIENT”. No offence punishable under Sections

420/473/120B of the IPC is attracted. No ingredients are also

fulfilled, even prima facie, towards those sections. Therefore, this

proceeding is frivolous and malicious, and if it were allowed to

continue, it would prejudice the petitioners and be an absolute

abuse of process of law. To secure the ends of justice, the

proceeding is liable to be quashed.

7

CRR No. 3280 of 2022

12. Learned senior counsel finally submitted that the learned

Magistrate took cognizance mechanically without assessing the

materials and in a casual manner. Learned senior counsel has

further contended that when no agreement for sale or sale deed

was executed between the parties of any land, the question of

liability or handing over the original deed does not arise, and the

offence cannot be said to be committed by the petitioners.

13. Learned counsel, Mr. Satadru Lahiri, on the other hand,

appearing on behalf of the opposite party, opposed the prayer of

the petitioner and further submitted that the complainant is the

absolute owner of the plot of land measuring about 179.25 Satak

at Ramnagar, Hooghly. The petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 came to

the office of the opposite party with a proposal to purchase his

land and demanded his original documents. After being satisfied

in the month of September 2018, the accused persons came to

his office and handed over a cheque of Rs. 1,58,45,971/- to the

opposite party and requested for the sale deed to be completed

within a fortnight without entering into an agreement for sale.

On such assurance, the opposite party handed over all the

original documents in the presence of some witnesses and

presented the cheque, which was dishonoured due to insufficient

funds.

8

CRR No. 3280 of 2022

14. It was further submitted that the opposite party went to the

office of the accused persons and requested them to either make

payment or hand over all documents, but they refused to return

the documents. Accordingly, he made a complaint to the Hare

Street P.S. and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, but no action

was taken. Accordingly, he filed a criminal case against the

present petitioners. It is an undisputed fact that there was no

execution of an agreement for sale or sale deed between the

parties. However, they retained the original deeds, including

other documents which were still lying with the petitioners.

Therefore, this instant criminal Revisional application is liable to

be dismissed with a direction upon the Trial Court to proceed

with the proceedings against the petitioners to uncover the truth

and punish the instant petitioners.

15. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the following

judgments: -

i. Ghanshyam Sharma v. Surendra Kumar Sharma &

Ors.

1

Particularly paragraph no. 8:

“8. Whether the respondents are guilty under Section 379 IPC or

not is a matter of evidence. The fact that the police chose to file a

charge-sheet under Sections 406 and 420 IPC is not conclusive

regarding the offences for which the respondent-accused are to

be tried. The trial court can always frame an appropriate charge

1

(2014) 13 SCC 401;

9

CRR No. 3280 of 2022

if there is sufficient material from the report of the police available

before it. In case where the material is insufficient to frame a

charge, the trial court may either discharge the accused or may

direct further investigation in the matter. Before deciding as to

which one of the three courses of action mentioned above is to be

resorted to, the trial court must examine the content of the

complaint, the evidence gathered by the investigating agency and

also scrutinise whether the investigating agency proceeded in the

right direction.”

ii. Sesami Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Director v.

State of Meghalaya & Ors.

2

Particularly paragraph no.13:

“13. We are of the opinion that the petition filed by the contesting

respondents under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 is an abuse of the process of the Court. As

already noticed, the facts are seriously in dispute. The truth or

otherwise of such facts can only be established by evidence at

the trial. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court

erred in quashing FIR No. 43(10) of 2011 dated 12-10-2011. We,

therefore, set aside the order [Sanjay Kabra v. State of

Meghalaya, 2013 SCC OnLine Megh 24] of the High Court. The

first respondent is directed to proceed with FIR No. 43(10) of

2011 dated 12-10-2011 in accordance with law.”

16. Before adverting to the merits, it is necessary to recapitulate the

settled parameters within which the inherent power under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is exercised to quash a criminal

proceeding. The categories enumerated in State of Haryana v.

Bhajan Lal

3

, remain the guiding principles. Of these, categories

(1) and (7) are directly attracted to the facts of the present case,

namely, where the allegations made in the complaint, even if

2

(2014) 16 SCC 711

3

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

10

CRR No. 3280 of 2022

taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not

prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the

accused; and where the criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or has been instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, to spite the accused due

to private and personal grudge.

17. The essential ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section

420 of the IPC require the existence of a fraudulent or dishonest

intention at the very inception of the transaction, i.e., at the time

the inducement was made and the property or valuable security

was parted with. It is well settled that a mere breach of contract,

or the failure of a civil transaction to fructify, does not, by itself,

translate into the offence of cheating unless dishonest intention

at the outset is discernible from the record.

18. Tested on this touchstone, the facts placed before this Court do

not disclose the essential ingredient of dishonest inducement

from inception. It is an admitted position, accepted by both

sides, that no agreement for sale, and no sale deed, was ever

executed between the petitioners and the opposite party. What

existed between the parties was, at best, a negotiation for the

purchase of land, conditional upon the petitioners' satisfaction

as to title. The negotiation never matured into a concluded

11

CRR No. 3280 of 2022

contract. The cheque in question was admittedly handed over

during the course of such negotiation, and its dishonour

occurred only after the petitioners, upon completion of their due

diligence, found the representations as to title unsubstantiated

and accordingly cancelled the proposed transaction. On these

facts, the essential attribute of cheating, dishonest inducement

inducing delivery of property, coupled with an intention not to

perform from the very outset, is absent. What is disclosed, at

best, is a civil dispute as to non-performance of a negotiated

understanding, which does not colour of the character of a

criminal offence.

19. It is also significant to note that the opposite party had already

invoked the remedy available under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, being C.S. 107429 of 2018, in

respect of the self-same cheque and the self-same transaction.

Cognizance in that proceeding was taken on 31.12.2018. The

institution of a subsequent proceeding under Sections

420/473/120B of the IPC on the very same cause of action, i.e.,

the same cheque, the same transaction, and the same set of

facts, without any additional element being disclosed to elevate

the dispute from the civil/quasi-criminal realm of cheque

dishonour into the realm of cheating, lends considerable weight

12

CRR No. 3280 of 2022

to the petitioners' contention that the impugned complaint

constitutes an unnecessary proceeding, calculated to multiply

the petitioners' harassment rather than to vindicate any distinct

wrong.

20. As regards Section 473 of the IPC, which penalises the making

or possession of a document resembling a forged document with

the requisite knowledge, no material has been placed on record,

nor is any such case set out in the body of the complaint, to

indicate the existence, fabrication, or use of any forged

document by the petitioners. The provision, on the facts alleged,

has no application whatsoever, and its invocation appears to

have been made without appreciation of its constituent

ingredients.

21. The charge under Section 120B of the IPC, being one of criminal

conspiracy, is by its very nature dependent upon the existence of

an agreement to commit an offence which is itself made out.

Once the substantive offence under Section 420 IPC is found, on

prima facie reading of the complaint and the materials on record,

not to be attracted, the derivative charge of conspiracy cannot

survive independently and must fall along with it.

22. To constitute cheating, there must be deception coupled with

fraudulent or dishonest inducement at the inception of the

13

CRR No. 3280 of 2022

transaction. The complaint, however, does not contain specific

averments to demonstrate that, at the time of negotiation, the

petitioners had any dishonest intention rather he himself admits

that the petitioners had issued a post-dated cheque in favour of

the petitioner but subsequently, the said negotiation for

purchase of the subject land does not fructify. Consequently, no

stretch of imagination it come to an aid of cheating.

23. The principles laid down in Murari Lal Gupta v. Gopi Singh

4

,

Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar

5

and Vijay Kumar

Ghai v. State of W.B.

6

, to the effect that breach of contract

simply does not constitute cheating in the absence of initial

dishonest intention, are directly attracted to the facts of the

present case. The ratio of these decisions fortifies the conclusion

that the essential ingredients of Section 420 of IPC are not

disclosed. However, it the present case no memo of receipt of

earnest money, agreement for sale or conveyance deed

admittedly executed by and between the parties prior to

issuance of cheque. The complaint appears to be an attempt to

impart a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil dispute or

not at all disputes between the parties.

4

(2005) 13 SCC 699 : 2005 SCC OnLine SC 1541;

5

(2005) 10 SCC 336;

6

(2022) 7 SCC 124 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 344 .

14

CRR No. 3280 of 2022

24. Having regard to the foregoing, this Court is of the considered

view that the allegations contained in the complaint, even if

accepted in their entirety and taken at face value, do not disclose

the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections

420/473/120B of the IPC. The continuation of the impugned

proceeding, being C.S. 4034 of 2019 pending before the Learned

Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta, would accordingly

amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and would

occasion manifest injustice to the petitioners. The proceeding is,

therefore, liable to be quashed.

25. Accordingly, CRR No. 3280 of 2022 is allowed. Connected

applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of.

26. Consequently, the proceeding being complaint case being C.S.

4034 of 2019 instituted under Sections 420/473/120B of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Pankaj Ladia Vs. Tigerhill Vinimay

Private Limited & Ors.) pending before the Learned Metropolitan

Magistrate, 8

th

Court, Calcutta is quashed and all orders passed

therein are hereby set aside insofar as the petitioners are

concerned.

27. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Trial Court

for information and taking necessary steps in accordance with

law.

15

CRR No. 3280 of 2022

28. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

29. All parties will act on the server copies of this Judgment

uploaded from the official website of this Court.

30. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for,

is to be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all

legal formalities.

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)

(P.A.)