Allegations of Inducement and Monetary Receipt Preclude Quashing of Cheating Charges Under Inherent Powers

The petitioners, practicing advocates of the Calcutta High Court, sought the quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 324, 420, 371, 406, 506, and 34 of the IPC.

The Opposite Party No. 2 (complainant) alleged that he, along with one Arindam Roy, intended to purchase land for a business venture (“Matua TV”).

It was alleged that the complainant transferred approximately ₹17,30,000 to the account of petitioner Tripti Sarkar and additional amounts to Sudeb Sarkar and Arindam Roy based on assurances regarding the land.

When the complainant demanded the return of the money on May 11, 2022, he was allegedly abused and assaulted.

Following a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC, an FIR was registered and a charge sheet subsequently filed.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners (advocates) should be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC on the grounds of false implication and lack of criminal ingredients.

2. Whether charges under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the IPC can be maintained simultaneously in the present circumstances.

Section 482 of the CrPC, emphasizing that inherent powers must be exercised sparingly to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) and Section 420 (Cheating) of the IPC, as interpreted in S.W. Palanitkar Ors. vs State of Bihar Anr.

The precedent set in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh Anr. regarding the simultaneous application of sections 406 and 420.

Co-ordinate Bench decision in D.K. Enterprises Private Limited vs State of West Bengal.

The court rejected the petitioners' contention that they were acting solely in a professional capacity as advocates, observing that the petitioners' own pleadings admitted to knowledge of business transactions rather than a client-advocate relationship regarding the funds.

The investigation revealed bank statements showing substantial monetary transfers from the de facto complainant to the petitioners' accounts, which prima facie established their involvement as alleged business partners of the principal accused, Arindam Roy.

While acknowledging that Section 406 and 420 often do not go together, the court noted that at the stage of a Section 482 petition, it cannot conduct a "meticulous analysis" to determine if the facts will lead to conviction.

The presence of deception and inducement from the inception is a matter for the trial court to determine during the framing of charges.

The court ruled that the proceedings did not constitute an abuse of process and that the learned trial court possesses the mandate to decide the applicability of specific charges at the time of framing charges; consequently, CRR 1333 of 2023 and CRR 2344 of 2023 were dismissed.