GYANESWAR PRASAD AGARWAL vs STATE

1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay

C.R.R. 1522 of 2006

Sri Gyaneshwar Prasad Agarwal
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sounak Mondal
Mr. Neelesh Chowdhury
Ms. Anuradha Podder

For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Rajmohan Chattoraj
Mr. Suman Basu

For the State : Mr. Joydeep Roy

Judgment on : 22.06.2026

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-
1. The revisional application has been instituted assailing the order dated 4th
April, 2006 passed by the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in
connection with Hare Street P.S. Case No. 691 dated 15th October, 2001,
registered under Sections 406/420 read with Section 120B of the Indian
Penal Code. The petitioner seeks judicial intervention against the direction
for reinvestigation issued by the Learned Magistrate, contending that the
impugned order traverses beyond the contours of statutory authority and
has been rendered in disregard of settled principles governing criminal
process.

2

2. The genesis of the prosecution lay in a complaint lodged by the de facto
complainant under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging
that the petitioner and certain others had induced the complainant to enter
into a transaction for purchase of a parcel of land situated at Mondal Ghati
on V.I.P. Road, Kolkata. According to the complaint, representations were
made regarding the petitioner's title and possession over the property,
pursuant whereto a substantial sum aggregating Rs.18,00,000/- was paid as
advance consideration. The complainant subsequently claimed to have
discovered that the land had earlier been acquired by the State for public
purposes and, alleging deception, sought initiation of criminal proceedings.
3. The petitioner, however, asserts that the allegations constitute a distorted
portrayal of a commercial transaction and are bereft of the essential
attributes of criminality. It is the petitioner's categorical stand that the
transaction was conducted openly, that possession of the land had been
delivered to the complainant, and that the complainant had acknowledged
the same. Correspondence exchanged between the parties, according to the
petitioner, reflected continuous engagement regarding the transaction and
demonstrated that the dispute pertained solely to contractual obligations
and reciprocal claims arising therefrom.
4. The petitioner further relies upon communications addressed to the
complainant and to the investigating authorities to demonstrate that every
allegation of deceit had been expressly refuted at the earliest opportunity.
Particular emphasis has been placed upon documents revealing that the
parties had resorted to arbitration and that original records concerning the

3

transaction remained before the arbitrator. Such circumstances, according
to the petitioner, furnish compelling indication that the controversy
possessed a distinctly civil complexion rather than the character of an
offence attracting penal consequences.
5. A significant facet of the petitioner's challenge concerns the course adopted
during investigation. Following registration of the First Information Report,
investigation culminated in submission of Final Report No.49 dated 18th
February, 2002 wherein the Investigating Authority opined that no
ingredients of offences under Sections 406, 420 or 120B of the Indian Penal
Code were disclosed and that the dispute was essentially civil in nature. The
Investigating Officer accordingly sought closure of the proceedings.
6. The petitioner asserts that after submission of the Final Report, notice was
issued to the de facto complainant. Despite repeated opportunities extending
over a considerable span of time, the complainant failed to file any
substantive protest petition. Repeated prayers for extension of time were
entertained over several dates. Ultimately, after a prolonged interval from the
filing of the Final Report, an application was tendered seeking further
investigation by another investigating agency. The petitioner contends that
the said application was neither supported by cogent materials nor
accompanied by any satisfactory explanation accounting for the
extraordinary delay.
7. According to the petitioner, the Learned Magistrate, while passing the
impugned order dated 4th April, 2006, directed reinvestigation in a
mechanical manner without recording reasons, without analysing the

4

materials collected during investigation, and without addressing the
conclusions contained in the Final Report. Such a direction, it is argued,
stands at variance with the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
the judicial precedents governing the powers exercisable by a Magistrate
upon receipt of a police report.

8. The petitioner further contends that the complaint, even if accepted in its
entirety, reveals no element of fraudulent inducement at the inception of the
transaction, which constitutes the foundational requirement for an offence of
cheating. The allegations, at their highest, disclose a dispute arising from a
failed commercial arrangement involving immovable property. Criminal
proceedings, it is submitted, have been invoked as an instrument of pressure
to secure advantage in a private transaction and to convert a civil
disagreement into a penal proceeding.
9. It is thus the petitioner's case that the impugned order directing
reinvestigation is cryptic, devoid of analytical reasoning, inconsistent with
established legal doctrine, and productive of manifest prejudice. The
continuance of such proceedings, according to the petitioner, would
transform the criminal process into a vehicle of commercial coercion rather
than an instrument for vindication of genuine criminal wrongs. On such
premises, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 4th April,
2006 and consequential reliefs in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of
this Court.
10. The Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned
order dated 4th April, 2006 as a jurisdictional transgression clothed in

5

judicial form. It was submitted that the Learned Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Calcutta, while dealing with a police report submitted under
Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ventured beyond the
boundaries prescribed by statute in directing reinvestigation of the case.
According to the petitioner, such a course finds no sanction within the
legislative framework governing criminal investigation and therefore renders
the impugned order legally infirm.
11. The Learned Counsel traced the factual backdrop of the dispute to a
commercial transaction concerning a parcel of land situated at Mondal
Ghati, V.I.P. Road, Kolkata. The complainant had, after examining title
documents and satisfying itself regarding the transaction, agreed to
purchase the property for a consideration of Rs.25,60,548.50/- and had paid
an aggregate sum of Rs.18 lakhs by way of cheques. The subsequent
discovery that the property had earlier been subjected to acquisition
proceedings gave rise, at its highest, to a dispute concerning reciprocal
rights and obligations flowing from a contractual arrangement. Such
circumstances, it was contended, did not furnish the foundational elements
necessary to attract the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 or
120B of the Indian Penal Code.
12. It was argued that the materials collected during investigation revealed no
circumstance indicative of fraudulent inducement at the inception of the
transaction. The essence of the accusation rested upon events which
surfaced long after the agreement had been entered into. The narrative
projected by the complainant therefore disclosed a discord of a civil

6

complexion rather than a criminal design conceived from the very beginning.
Criminal prosecution, it was submitted, had been invoked as an instrument
of pressure in aid of a property dispute and not as a legitimate response to a
cognizable offence.
13. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the Investigating Agency, after
th
conducting a comprehensive inquiry, submitted a Final Report dated 18
December, 2002 opining that no criminal offence was disclosed and that the
dispute was essentially civil in nature. Such conclusion, according to the
petitioner, was reached upon scrutiny of the documentary materials and
surrounding circumstances. Notice was thereafter issued to the de facto
complainant, affording an opportunity to challenge the closure report.
14. A considerable emphasis was placed upon the chronology that followed.
Despite repeated opportunities extending over several years, the de facto
complainant failed to place any substantive protest petition before the
Learned Magistrate. Applications seeking adjournments and enlargement of
time succeeded one another without any meaningful challenge to the
findings recorded by the Investigating Agency. The Naraji petition ultimately
surfaced after an extensive lapse of time from the date of submission of the
Final Report and was accompanied by a prayer for further inquiry into
matters that had already received investigative scrutiny.
15. The Learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order directing
reinvestigation was bereft of analytical reasoning. The Learned Magistrate
neither examined the evidentiary materials gathered during investigation nor
assigned reasons demonstrating dissatisfaction with the conclusions

7

recorded in the Final Report. The order, according to the petitioner,
consisted merely of a direction for reinvestigation without any discussion of
the factual or legal basis warranting such a course.
16. The petitioner further contended that the expression "reinvestigation"
employed in the impugned order possessed a distinct legal significance and
could not be treated as synonymous with "further investigation". Drawing
attention to Sections 156 and 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
Learned Counsel submitted that the legislative scheme contemplates
continuation of investigation through the mechanism of further investigation
under Section 173(8), enabling submission of supplementary reports upon
discovery of additional evidence. Such provision, however, does not vest a
Magistrate with authority to erase an earlier investigation and command a
fresh investigative exercise commencing from the beginning.
17. Reliance was placed upon the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali 2013 (5) SCC 762 , wherein the distinction
between initial investigation, further investigation and fresh or de novo
investigation received authoritative exposition. Learned counsel submitted
that the power to direct a fresh investigation or reinvestigation resides within
a far narrower constitutional domain and cannot be exercised by a
Magistrate dealing with a police report. Consequently, the order dated 4th
April, 2006 was said to suffer from a defect striking at its very jurisdictional
foundation.
18. Addressing the attempt made on behalf of the complainant to construe the
word "reinvestigation" as "further investigation", the Learned Counsel

8

submitted that judicial orders must be interpreted according to the language
consciously employed therein. An order containing a direction that the court
itself lacked authority to issue cannot subsequently be salvaged by linguistic
reconstruction. Such an exercise, it was argued, would amount to
substituting the order actually passed with one that was never rendered.

19. With regard to C.R.A.N. No. 2 of 2024 seeking action under Section 340 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Learned Counsel submitted that the
application had been instituted after an extraordinary lapse of nearly
eighteen years. The allegations of perjury rested principally upon assertions
concerning arbitral proceedings and certain correspondence exchanged
between the parties. The petitioner maintained that the order granting bail
on 5th December, 2001 had attained finality and had never been questioned
by the complainant. Any attempt to reopen issues connected with that order
after more than two decades was portrayed as legally impermissible.
20. The Learned Counsel further submitted that documentary records, including
postal acknowledgements, demonstrated that correspondence relied upon by
the petitioner had indeed been dispatched and communicated. The
accusation of fabrication therefore lacked factual support. Even otherwise,
the conditions precedent for invocation of Section 340 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure were conspicuously absent. Reliance was placed upon
the decisions in Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal 1973 (3) SCC
753 and Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah 2005 (4) SCC 370 to
contend that proceedings for perjury are not to be initiated upon every
allegation of factual inconsistency but only where the interests of justice

9

demand such intervention and where the statutory prerequisites stand
satisfied.
21. The Learned Advocate thus urged that the impugned order directing
reinvestigation constituted an impermissible exercise of jurisdiction, that the
allegations embedded in the complaint disclosed no criminal offence, that
the Final Report rightly characterised the dispute as civil in nature, and that
the subsequent proceedings initiated by the complainant reflected a
sustained endeavour to convert a contractual disagreement into a criminal
prosecution. Upon such premises, the petitioner prayed for annulment of the
order dated 4th April, 2006 and dismissal of the ancillary proceedings
founded upon Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
22. The Learned Advocate appearing for the de facto complainant/Opposite Party
No. 2 stoutly resisted the revisional challenge and contended that the
present proceeding is founded upon a calculated design of deception which
had its genesis in the very inception of the transaction. According to the
complainant, the petitioner and the other accused persons projected
themselves as persons possessed of a clear and marketable title over a
substantial parcel of land comprised in Dag No. 462 at Mondal Ghati, V.I.P.
Road, Kolkata, and thereby induced the complainant to part with a sum of
Rs.18,00,000/- towards the agreed consideration of Rs.25,60,548.50/-.
23. The Learned Counsel submitted that the subsequent revelation regarding
acquisition of the land by the Land Acquisition Collector, Government of
West Bengal, did not constitute a later development affecting contractual
performance, but rather exposed a material fact which had been consciously

10

withheld from the complainant at the time the transaction was negotiated
and the consideration received. Such suppression, it was argued, strikes at
the root of the transaction and furnishes compelling evidence of a fraudulent
intent accompanying the representation from its very commencement.
24. It was contended that despite repeated requests, the accused persons
neither executed the conveyance in favour of the complainant nor restored
the monies received from him. The complainant was therefore left with no
recourse save invocation of the criminal process. Pursuant to an application
under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate found sufficient grounds warranting investigation
and directed registration of a criminal case, culminating in Hare Street Police
Station Case No. 691 of 2001 under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code.
25. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner had secured bail
upon a representation that arbitral proceedings concerning the dispute were
pending before Sri J.M. Jhunjhunwala of P.D. Hiumatsingka and Co.,
Solicitors & Advocates. According to the complainant, no such arbitral
proceeding ever existed. The plea of arbitration, it was argued, constituted a
fabricated narrative consistently advanced before various forums with a view
to obtaining judicial advantage and forestalling criminal prosecution. The
complainant alleged that such conduct amounted not merely to a
misstatement of fact but to a deliberate distortion of the judicial record,
thereby impairing the sanctity of court proceedings.

11

26. The Learned Advocate criticized the investigation conducted by the Kolkata
Police and submitted that the Investigating Agency failed to discharge its
statutory obligation with the degree of diligence demanded by the
circumstances. Attention was drawn to materials indicating that the
investigating officer himself had considered verification of the alleged arbitral
proceeding necessary. Yet, according to the complainant, no meaningful
inquiry was undertaken in that regard. The Final Report characterizing the
dispute as civil in nature was therefore assailed as a conclusion arrived at
without adequate scrutiny of the foundational allegations relating to
fraudulent inducement and concealment of material facts.
27. It was urged that the materials available on record unmistakably disclose the
essential ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Learned
counsel emphasised that the complainant had been persuaded to part with a
substantial sum of money while the accused were fully aware of
circumstances affecting the title and status of the property. The existence of
mens rea , according to the complainant, stood embedded within the very
architecture of the transaction and distinguished the matter from an
ordinary commercial dispute.
28. With regard to the impugned order dated 4th April, 2006, the Learned
Counsel submitted that the Learned Magistrate acted upon a detailed Naraji
petition and examined the case diary before directing reinvestigation. The
order, it was argued, reflected judicial application of mind to the deficiencies
apparent in the investigation and to the grievances articulated by the
complainant. The absence of an elaborate discussion on merits did not

12

detract from the legality of the order, particularly at a stage where the court
was concerned with the propriety of the investigative process rather than
adjudication of guilt.
29. The Learned Counsel further contended that excessive emphasis upon the
terminology employed by the Learned Magistrate would elevate form above
substance. Even assuming that the expression "reinvestigation" had been
employed, the paramount consideration remained the ascertainment of truth
and the correction of investigative deficiencies. The complainant maintained
that a purely semantic challenge ought not to eclipse the substantive quest
for justice, especially where serious allegations of fraud and deception
remained inadequately examined.
30. Invoking the plenary powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, together with its inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned counsel submitted that this
Court possesses ample authority to mould relief in a manner conducive to
the administration of justice. In that perspective, it was suggested that even
if the nomenclature employed in the impugned order invited debate, the
order could be sustained by construing it as a direction for further
investigation so that the factual controversies receive a comprehensive and
lawful examination.
31. The Learned Advocate also urged that the complainant has endured a
prolonged quest for redress spanning more than two decades and that
procedural objections ought not to eclipse the substantive merits of the
allegations. According to the complainant, the passage of time has operated

13

to his detriment, while the accused have continued to derive advantage from
interlocutory orders and procedural complexities.
32. In support of the ancillary application under Section 340 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, learned counsel submitted that the representations
concerning the alleged arbitral proceedings constituted a deliberate attempt
to mislead judicial forums and thereby warranted inquiry into offences
affecting the administration of justice. Reliance was placed upon judicial
precedents emphasising the obligation of litigants to approach courts with
complete candour and the necessity of preserving the purity of judicial
proceedings from falsehood and manipulation.
33. The Learned Advocate accordingly maintained that the impugned order
dated 4th April, 2006 suffers from no legal infirmity warranting interference
in revisional jurisdiction; that the allegations reveal a carefully orchestrated
scheme of deception rather than a mere civil disagreement; that the
investigative exercise culminating in the Final Report left vital aspects of the
matter unexplored; and that the interests of justice demand a fresh and
comprehensive examination of the facts. On such premises, dismissal of the
revisional application and continuation of investigative proceedings were
earnestly sought.
34. The narrative emerging from the records, the submissions advanced on
behalf of the respective parties, the materials collected during investigation
and the legal principles governing the field, invite scrutiny of a question that
transcends the fortunes of the litigants and touches the delicate frontier
separating a civil dispute from criminal prosecution.

14

35. The genesis of the controversy lies in a transaction concerning immovable
property. The complainant entered into negotiations with the petitioner and
others for acquisition of a parcel of land upon examination of title deeds and
other supporting documents. Considerable sums were paid pursuant to the
agreement between the parties. Thereafter, disputes surfaced regarding the
status of the property and the rights flowing from the transaction. What
followed was a prolonged contest spanning more than two decades,
traversing investigative proceedings, revisional challenges, applications
seeking further inquiry and collateral proceedings invoking Section 340 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
36. The complaint, when examined in its entirety and accepted at its highest,
reveals a dispute rooted in reciprocal contractual obligations arising from a
property transaction. The allegations do not disclose that at the inception of
the arrangement the accused persons possessed a fraudulent design
intended to induce the complainant to part with money by means of
deception. The distinction is neither academic nor technical. It constitutes
the very foundation upon which criminal liability under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code rests.
37. For an offence of cheating to emerge, dishonest intention must accompany
the representation at the very moment it is made. A subsequent failure to
perform contractual obligations, a disagreement concerning title, or a
dispute regarding completion of a transaction does not, by itself,
metamorphose a civil disagreement into a criminal offence. The complaint

15

before the Court falls short of disclosing those indispensable features which
would justify a criminal trial for cheating.
38. The allegations under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code fare no better.
Criminal breach of trust postulates entrustment coupled with dishonest
misappropriation or conversion of entrusted property. The records do not
reveal any entrustment in the legal sense contemplated by the statute. The
monies exchanged between the parties formed part of a commercial
arrangement governed by contractual rights and obligations. The
foundational ingredient of entrustment, upon which the statutory provision
rests, remains absent.
39. The accusation under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is equally
fragile. A charge of criminal conspiracy cannot survive in abstraction. It
must rest upon materials indicative of an agreement to commit an illegal act
or a legal act by illegal means. Beyond broad assertions and inferential
allegations, the records furnish no material capable of disclosing a concerted
criminal design amongst the accused persons. The charge of conspiracy
therefore lacks an evidentiary foundation.
40. An aspect of considerable significance is the existence of the arbitral
mechanism contemplated between the parties. Commercial parties who
consciously elect a contractual forum for resolution of disputes acknowledge,
by such election, the predominance of private rights and obligations
governing their relationship. The materials placed before this Court indicate
that the disputes arising from the transaction had already entered the
domain of arbitral resolution. Such circumstance reinforces the essentially

16

civil complexion of the controversy. Criminal law cannot be permitted to
eclipse contractual remedies merely because one party finds the civil process
less advantageous than penal prosecution.
41. Equally important is the legal consequence flowing from the Final Report
submitted by the Investigating Agency. The Investigating Authority, after
inquiry, formed an opinion that the dispute bore a civil character and that
the ingredients of the offences alleged were not disclosed. Upon receipt of
such report, the Learned Magistrate undoubtedly possessed the authority to
accept the report, reject the report, take cognizance upon the materials
available, or direct further investigation where circumstances warranted
such a course. Such authority, however, must operate within the confines
delineated by the Code.
42. The impugned order dated 4th April, 2006 directed "reinvestigation" of the
case. The distinction between further investigation and reinvestigation is
neither semantic nor ornamental. It bears direct relation to jurisdiction.
Further investigation supplements an existing investigation. Reinvestigation
or fresh investigation supplants the earlier exercise and commences afresh.
The statutory framework embodied in Sections 156 and 173 of the Code
preserves the former in appropriate circumstances but does not confer upon
a Magistrate authority to direct the latter.
43. The exposition of law rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi
v. Irshad Ali (supra) leaves little room for uncertainty on this aspect. A
Magistrate may, in a suitable case, require further investigation. A direction
for fresh investigation or reinvestigation belongs to a different jurisdictional

17

sphere. The impugned order therefore suffers from a defect striking at the
root of the authority exercised.
44. The contention advanced on behalf of the complainant that the expression
"reinvestigation" should be read as "further investigation" cannot be
accepted. Judicial orders derive meaning from the language consciously
employed therein. A jurisdictional defect cannot be cured through
subsequent linguistic reconstruction. The legality of an order must be tested
on the basis of what the Court has actually directed and not on the basis of
what another court may speculate it intended to direct.
45. The chronology of events furnishes an additional circumstance of relevance.
The Final Report was submitted in the year 2002. Repeated opportunities
were afforded to the complainant. The Naraji petition emerged after
substantial passage of time. The proceedings thereafter travelled through
successive stages while the foundational nature of the dispute remained
unchanged. The long passage of time has not yielded any material capable of
transforming the civil character of the controversy into a prosecutable
criminal offence.
46. Courts exercising criminal jurisdiction remain vigilant against attempts to
employ penal provisions as instruments of leverage in commercial disputes.
Criminal law carries consequences affecting liberty, reputation and social
standing. Invocation of such jurisdiction in matters essentially arising from
contractual discord risks converting the criminal process into a coercive
mechanism for recovery of money or enforcement of private claims. Such

18

deployment of criminal machinery stands at variance with the purpose for
which penal law exists.
47. Viewed cumulatively, the complaint, the investigative materials, the
contractual relationship between the parties, the arbitral features of the
dispute, the absence of the statutory ingredients constituting offences under
Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and the jurisdictional
infirmity embedded in the impugned order, persuade this Court that
continuation of the criminal proceeding would serve no legitimate
prosecutorial purpose. Rather, it would subject the parties to a criminal trial
in a matter where the gravamen of the controversy lies within the realm of
civil adjudication.
48. Permitting the prosecution to proceed in such circumstances would amount
to a misuse of the criminal process and would occasion a manifest departure
from the principles that govern fair administration of justice.
49. Accordingly, the revisional application succeeds. The order dated 4th April,
2006 passed by the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta
directing reinvestigation in Hare Street Police Station Case No. 691 dated
15th October, 2001 is set aside.
50. The records reveal that the controversy between the parties arose from a
transaction concerning immovable property, the terms whereof were
negotiated over a period of time and culminated in payment of substantial
consideration by the complainant. The dispute thereafter centred around the
status of the property, the rights flowing from the transaction and the

19

consequences arising from the acquisition proceedings allegedly affecting the
land in question.
51. The pivotal issue before this Court is whether the allegations, even if
accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of offences punishable
under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code so as to justify
continuation of criminal prosecution.
52. The offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code is founded upon deception leading to delivery of property. The statutory
provision is not attracted merely because a contractual promise remains
unfulfilled or because a transaction subsequently encounters obstacles. The
law insists upon the presence of a dishonest intention at the very inception
of the transaction. Such intention must precede or accompany the
representation that induced the aggrieved party to part with property.
53. The distinction is fundamental. Every breach of contract may generate civil
consequences; every breach of contract does not constitute cheating.
Criminal culpability emerges only where the representation itself is tainted
by fraud from its inception. The complaint and the materials collected during
investigation do not disclose circumstances from which such initial
fraudulent intention may be legitimately inferred. The allegations reveal that
negotiations were conducted, title documents were produced, consideration
was settled, payments were made through banking channels and the
relationship between the parties continued over a considerable period. Such
circumstances are far more consistent with a commercial transaction that

20

subsequently descended into controversy than with a preconceived design to
deceive.
54. The allegations also fail to satisfy the requirements of Section 406 of the
Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust rests upon the existence of
entrustment followed by dishonest misappropriation or conversion.
Entrustment constitutes the juridical foundation of the offence. The monies
paid by the complainant were not entrusted to the accused for safe custody
or for administration on behalf of the complainant. They formed part of a
contractual arrangement concerning sale of immovable property. The
relationship between the parties was that of contracting parties pursuing
reciprocal obligations and not one involving fiduciary entrustment. The
essential statutory element upon which Section 406 is erected therefore
remains absent.
55. The accusation under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code also lacks
substantive foundation. Criminal conspiracy is not established through
conjecture or suspicion. The offence requires material demonstrating an
agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or a lawful
act through illegal means. The complaint contains assertions regarding
participation of several persons in the transaction. Such participation,
without more, cannot furnish proof of a criminal conspiracy. No material has
been brought on record indicating a meeting of minds directed towards
commission of an offence. The charge consequently remains bereft of the
factual substratum required by law.

21

56. A circumstance of substantial significance is the existence of the arbitral
mechanism governing disputes between the parties. Commercial entities
frequently incorporate arbitration clauses to secure resolution of disputes
through a mutually chosen forum. Such a clause reflects the intention of the
parties that disagreements arising from the transaction should ordinarily be
adjudicated within the framework of private law. Although the existence of
an arbitration agreement does not create an absolute bar against criminal
prosecution where genuine criminality is disclosed, it nevertheless assumes
considerable significance while determining the true character of the
dispute.
57. The materials on record demonstrate that the parties themselves
contemplated recourse to arbitration. The controversy regarding title,
consideration, performance of contractual obligations and financial
consequences arising therefrom belongs essentially to the realm of civil
adjudication. Invocation of criminal law in such circumstances demands a
heightened degree of judicial scrutiny lest contractual disputes acquire penal
dimensions without the statutory ingredients of criminal offences being
present. The Court must also examine the legality of the impugned order
directing reinvestigation.
58. The scheme of Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure reveals a
carefully balanced distribution of powers between the investigating agency
and the Magistracy. Section 156 empowers investigation by the police. Upon
completion of investigation, a report is submitted under Section 173(2).

22

Thereafter, Section 173(8) preserves the authority of the investigating agency
to undertake further investigation if fresh material surfaces.
59. The expression employed by Parliament is "further investigation". Such
investigation supplements the earlier inquiry and culminates in a
supplementary report. The legislative text does not confer authority upon a
Magistrate to direct a fresh investigation wiping out the earlier exercise or to
command reinvestigation of the case.
60. The distinction between "further investigation" and "reinvestigation" has
received authoritative exposition in Vinay Tyagi versus Irshad Ali (supra).
Further investigation continues the existing process; reinvestigation
commences afresh. The former may be directed in circumstances recognised
by law. The latter belongs to a jurisdiction exercised in exceptional situations
by constitutional courts and not by a Magistrate acting under the Code.
61. The impugned order expressly directs "reinvestigation". The expression
appears repeatedly and forms the operative foundation of the order.
Jurisdiction cannot be expanded through interpretative reconstruction. A
court cannot be invited to substitute a legally permissible expression for the
one consciously employed by the authority whose order is under challenge.
The validity of a judicial order must be assessed on the language actually
used and the jurisdiction actually exercised.
62. The Final Report submitted by the Investigating Agency concluded that the
controversy was civil in character and that the ingredients of the alleged
offences were absent. Upon receipt of such report, the Learned Magistrate
possessed several recognised courses of action. The Learned Magistrate

23

could accept the report, disagree with the report and take cognizance on the
materials available, or direct further investigation if circumstances justified
such a course. The Code, however, did not empower the Learned Magistrate
to direct reinvestigation.
63. The impugned order also reveals a conspicuous absence of reasons
explaining why the conclusions reached by the Investigating Agency were
erroneous or why a fresh investigative exercise had become necessary.
Judicial discretion derives legitimacy from reasons. Reasons constitute the
visible manifestation of the decision-making process and provide assurance
that discretion has been exercised upon legal principles rather than
subjective inclination.
64. The cumulative effect of the foregoing circumstances leads this Court to
conclude that the dispute bears the unmistakable features of a civil
controversy arising from a commercial transaction. The constituent elements
of offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code
remain absent. The impugned direction for reinvestigation traverses beyond
the jurisdiction vested in the Learned Magistrate by the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Continuation of the prosecution in such circumstances would
neither advance the cause of criminal justice nor vindicate any recognised
penal interest. On the contrary, it would permit the criminal process to
operate as an instrument for exerting pressure in a dispute that properly
belongs to the civil forum chosen by the parties themselves.
65. The Court cannot remain indifferent where the coercive machinery of
criminal law is invoked in a sphere occupied predominantly by contractual

24

rights and obligations. Preservation of the distinction between civil liability
and criminal culpability is indispensable to the integrity of both systems.
Failure to maintain that distinction would erode the boundaries consciously
drawn by the legislature and repeatedly affirmed by judicial precedent.
66. Consequently, the proceedings arising out of Hare Street Police Station Case
No. 691 dated 15th October, 2001 corresponding to Complaint Case No.
5165 of 2001 under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code
stand quashed.
67. All consequential proceedings arising therefrom shall stand terminated.
Connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.
68. There shall be no order as to costs.
69. The endeavour of Opposite Party No. 2 to invoke Section 340 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure also does not commend acceptance.
70. Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not designed as a weapon
to be deployed in aid of private vengeance or as a collateral strategy in
protracted litigation. The provision is intended to preserve the purity of
judicial proceedings and to protect the administration of justice from
deliberate acts of perjury, fabrication of evidence or offences contemplated
under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code. The legislative focus is therefore not the
private injury allegedly suffered by a litigant but the impact of the alleged
conduct upon the judicial process itself.
71. The Constitution Bench in the celebrated decision of Iqbal Singh Marwah v.
Meenakshi Marwah (supra) authoritatively explained that initiation of
proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is

25

conditioned by the Court forming an opinion that such course is expedient
in the interests of justice. The provision does not contemplate automatic
prosecution whenever an allegation of falsehood is raised. The Court is
required to assess whether the alleged act has substantially affected the
administration of justice and whether the larger interests of judicial integrity
demand initiation of criminal proceedings.
72. Examined on the aforesaid touchstone, the allegations advanced by Opposite
Party No. 2 fall considerably short of the statutory threshold.
73. The foundation of the application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure rests upon the assertion that the petitioner had referred to an
arbitration proceeding and certain correspondence connected therewith. The
records reveal that the controversy regarding the existence, scope and legal
effect of such arbitration forms part of the broader dispute between the
parties concerning the underlying transaction. Whether a particular
arbitration proceeding was pending, whether correspondence was exchanged
and whether the petitioner's understanding of the legal position was
accurate are matters requiring adjudication upon evidence. Such questions
cannot, by themselves, furnish a basis for recording a prima facie conclusion
that an offence affecting administration of justice has been committed.
74. Equally significant is the fact that the alleged documents were neither forged
nor fabricated while in the custody of the Court. The grievance of Opposite
Party No. 2 is directed against documents and representations said to have
originated outside the precincts of the Court and prior to their production in
judicial proceedings. The Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah drew a

26

clear distinction between a document forged before its production in Court
and a document tampered with while remaining in custodia legis. The
restrictive mechanism embodied in Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure becomes operative principally where the offence bears a
direct nexus with the administration of justice in relation to judicial
proceedings.
75. The factual narrative before this Court discloses a commercial dispute
concerning a property transaction, refund of consideration and rival
contractual claims. The application under Section 340 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure appears to have emerged nearly eighteen years after
institution of the revisional proceeding. Such extraordinary delay
considerably diminishes the plea that immediate intervention became
necessary to safeguard the sanctity of judicial administration.
76. Another circumstance of considerable relevance is that the order granting
bail in favour of the petitioner attained finality long ago. The correctness of
the submissions recorded at the stage of bail was never subjected to
challenge before the appropriate forum. An application under Section 340 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be permitted to assume the character
of an indirect challenge to judicial orders that have long since acquired
finality.
77. The Court is also mindful that proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure are not intended to determine the veracity of every
disputed statement made by litigants. Judicial proceedings frequently
involve competing factual assertions. Acceptance of the proposition

27

canvassed by Opposite Party No. 2 would transform Section 340 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure into a routine adjunct of adversarial litigation, a
consequence consistently discouraged by judicial authority. The jurisdiction
is reserved for cases where the administration of justice itself has suffered a
demonstrable assault. No such circumstance emerges from the materials
placed before this Court.
78. The dispute between the parties, viewed in its entirety, remains anchored in
contractual obligations, alleged defects in title, financial claims and
consequences arising from the transaction relating to the property. The
invocation of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appears
ancillary to that larger contest. The materials on record do not persuade this
Court that initiation of perjury proceedings would advance the interests of
justice or preserve the dignity of the judicial process.
79. Consequently, the application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure lacks the juridical foundation necessary for invocation of that
extraordinary jurisdiction and does not create any impediment to the
exercise of revisional powers in favour of the petitioner.
80. This analysis dovetails with the other grounds for quashing, namely:
a. Absence of the foundational ingredients of Sections 406, 420 and
120B of the Indian Penal Code.
b. Predominantly civil and contractual character of the dispute.
c. Existence of an agreed arbitral mechanism.
d. Lack of jurisdiction in the Magistrate to direct "reinvestigation".

28

e. Abuse of criminal process by converting a commercial dispute into
a penal prosecution.
f. Failure of the materials collected during investigation to disclose a
prima facie criminal offence warranting trial.

81. In view of the above discussions, the proceedings in connection with
Complaint Case No.5165 of 2001 under Section 406/420 read with Section
th
120B of the Indian Penal Code and the order dated 4 April, 2006 passed by
the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in Hare Street P.S. Case
th
No.691 dated 15 October, 2001 is quashed.
82. Under such fact and circumstances, the criminal revisional application being
CRR 1522 of 2006 is allowed.
83. Accordingly, CRR 1522 of 2006 stands disposed of. Connected application, if
any, also stands disposed of.
84. Case Diary, if any, to be returned.
85. Let the copy of this judgment be sent to the Learned Trial Court for
necessary information and compliance.

86. All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded
from the official website of this court.
(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)