They Said He Never Meant To Pay. The Court Asked When That Began.
A contractor's dispute over extra work and extra cost was turned into a criminal case. The Calcutta High Court has ended it.
The Court held there can be no prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. A failure to keep a promise about extended work or extra cost is not enough, and an allegation that part payments were made strategically to induce the complainant needs prima facie proof of the strategy. Continuing would be an abuse of process, and the case was quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS.
- Intention at the outset is the whole offence. A promise that later fails is a civil matter.
- ‘Strategic’ part payments need proof, not an assertion that they were designed to induce.
- Criminal courts are not for settling scores — Mohammad Ibrahim v. State of Bihar applied.
- Section 528 BNSS is the inherent power now used for quashing.
- Court
- High Court at Calcutta
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
- Citation
- CRR No. 2771 of 2025
- Case
- CRR No. 2771 of 2025
- Decided
- 3 September 2026
- Outcome
- Revision allowed; criminal proceeding quashed
What the complaint amounted to
The allegations were that the petitioners failed to keep up their promise in respect of extended work or extra cost, and that part payments had been made strategically to induce the complainant to continue with the work.
Why that is not the offence of cheating
There can be no prosecution for cheating unless a fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction.
Even taking the allegations about the extended work and extra cost at face value, they are not enough to initiate a criminal proceeding on a mere allegation that the part payments were made strategically, in the absence of any prima facie proof of the alleged strategy.
In Mohammad Ibrahim v. State of Bihar the Supreme Court observed clearly that a criminal court should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes.
The order
Further continuance of the proceeding against the petitioners would be a mere abuse of the process of the court.
It was therefore a fit case for quashing in exercise of the Court's jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the pending case before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was quashed.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Is failing to pay for extra work a criminal offence?
Not by itself. Cheating requires dishonest intention right at the beginning of the transaction.
What is Section 528 of the BNSS?
The inherent power of the High Court, which replaced Section 482 of the Code, used here to quash the proceeding.
Quashing a contractual dispute dressed as cheating
- Fix the date of the alleged inducement and show what the accused actually did at that moment.
- Separate non-performance from deception; the complaint usually only pleads the first.
- Where 'strategy' or 'design' is alleged, demand the prima facie material for it.
- Cite Mohammad Ibrahim on criminal courts not being used to pressurise civil settlements.
Source. High Court at Calcutta, CRR No. 2771 of 2025, decided 3 September 2026 by Justice HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court at Calcutta and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in