In view of the provision contained in Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the intention of the offender who induces the complainant is decisive in discerning whether offence of cheating was committed or not. In fact, it cannot be denied that many a cheatings are being committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court passed a judgement addressing the application filed under Section 482 with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case in question is Priknit Retails Ltd and Ors v. the State of West Bengal CRR 731 of 2017. The same was presided over by Honourable Justice Madhumita Mitra


The case deals with a petition that was filed under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing a case that was filed under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Calcutta High Court referred to previous cases like the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to revisit the principles that regulate the exercise of Section 482 of CrPC.

While reading through the FIR filed, the Court noted that the allegation was that the complainant was induced into purchasing securities by wilful representation and the deciding factor in the case of cheating was the mens rea of the accused.

While the Court did agree to the fact that the transaction was commercial in nature, it was also held that commercial transactions might have criminal elements. Additionally, the averments made in the FIR revealed the commission of a cognizable offence.


Moreover, when a complaint discloses that the commercial transaction between the parties involves criminal offences, then the question of quashing the complaint cannot be allowed.

In order to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the only requirement is to see whether continuance of the criminal proceedings would be a total abuse of the process of Court.

In view of above, I am of the view that continuance of criminal proceedings against the present petitioners/accused would not be an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the prayer for quashing of the proceedings and setting aside the impugned order are hereby dismissed.

The Calcutta High Court was of the opinion that the complaint disclosed that the commercial transaction between the parties involved criminal offences and hence the quashing of the compliant cannot be allowed.

The only requirement to see whether the continuance of the criminal proceedings, in order to exercise the power under Section 482 of the CrPC; would be a total abuse of the process of the Court. The court held that the continuance if criminal proceedings against the petitioners will not abuse the process of the court and hence the prayer for quashing the same will be set aside.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


Click here to read the judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *