Calcutta High Court Quashes Case Against Actress Zareen Khan Booked For Failing To Appear As Guest At Kali Puja Celebrations

The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against actress Zareen Khan for allegedly failing to appear in Kali Puja celebrations at various pandals across the city in 2018.

Justice Bibhas Ranjan De held: "The opposite party no. 2 herein approached the petitioner to come as a guest artist. Accordingly, this proposal was accepted by the petitioner but ultimately she committed a breach. This whole course of action, in my humble opinion at best can be termed to be a breach of contract for which admittedly a civil suit is pending. The criminal courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes."

The complaint in question on the basis of which FIR was registered clearly spells out the commercial nature of relationship by and between the parties therefore allowing the instant criminal proceeding to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court, he added.

Contentions of parties

It was alleged that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance to that conspiracy, Khan, the petitioner deliberately failed to appear as a guest artist at eight(8) puja pandals during the festival of Kali Puja on 05.11.2018 as mutually agreed and organized by the opposite party no. 2, committing criminal breach of trust and causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 42 lacs. It was claimed that the petitioner even threatened to defame and criminally intimidate the opposite party no. 2.

Petitioner claimed that the allegations levelled in the FIR would make it evident that a purely civil dispute was given the cloak of criminality. It was stated that a mere failure to appear in the Puja Pandal as a guest cannot make out an offence of cheating as the quintessential ingredient of Section 420 of the IPC is initial deception and mere non-appearance before a Puja Pandal cannot infer initial deception.

It was further submitted that if a dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance then the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. 

Opposite party no. 2 with regard to the maintainability of the instant application, submitted that the revision application which has been affirmed by the petitioner who is an accused in the subject criminal proceeding is not legally sustainable in view of the embargo as laid down under Section 4 (2) of the Oaths Act.

It was further contended that the civil suit cannot come in the way of continuation of the criminal case as it is an admitted position of law that in the given set of circumstances both civil and criminal cases can run concurrently.

It was submitted that the facts narrated in the FIR, charge sheet and materials collected during the investigation substantially make out a prima facie case against the petitioner for the alleged offences and therefore there is no requirement to abruptly interfere with the proceeding at the very threshold under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

It was said that the petitioner had failed to show that further continuance of the proceeding is not maintainable/permitted in view of any expressed legal bar or that the facts delineated in the FIR and charge sheet do not satisfy the ingredients of any punishable offence.

Findings

Upon hearing the parties, the court agreed with the submissions by the counsel for the petitioners and held:

"It can easily be assessed that admittedly there was a contractual relationship by and between the parties for performance in exchange of monetary consideration. So, the main contentious issue in this revision application revolves around the sole question that whether a breach of contract can attract criminal prosecution for cheating. It is also pertinent to mention here that opposite party no. 2 herein admittedly filed a civil suit which is presently pending before the City Civil Court, Mumbai. A cumulative reading of the complaint as well as the materials collected during investigation clearly boils down to an admitted position of fact that there was a commercial relationship by and between the parties."

It was stated that according to the facts, after her failure to comply with the contract, the petitioner did not refund the advance amount. "This whole course of action, in my opinion, clearly demonstrates an issue of a breach of contract," the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that: "...the settled proposition of law enunciated by the Apex Court in a plethora of decisions which is to the effect that A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely an allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings."

Case: Zarin Momim Khan @ Zareen Khan Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr

Case No: C.R.R. 4698 of 2022

Click here to read order