The case concerns a long-standing partnership dispute between members of the Bagri family which resulted in both civil and criminal proceedings, culminating in the present appeal before the Supreme Court; the appellant Inder Chand Bagri and four relatives formed a partnership in 1976 for constructing and leasing godowns on the appellant’s own land, with a 1981 supplementary agreement expressly providing that after the expiry of the FCI lease the land and constructions would revert exclusively to the appellant, and later, a 1997 dissolution deed transferring all firm assets and liabilities to him; notwithstanding these documents, the complainant (Respondent No.1), after filing civil suits seeking dissolution and later challenging the appellant’s 2011 sale of the property to his nephew, instituted a criminal complaint in 2013 alleging offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC, accusing the appellant of misappropriation, cheating, and inducing him to enter the partnership, leading the Magistrate to take cognizance; the appellant’s Section 482 CrPC petition was rejected by the Gauhati High Court which held that a prima facie case existed, prompting the present appeal; the Supreme Court, after extensively analysing the partnership deed, supplementary agreement, and dissolution deed, held that the complainant himself had agreed to the property reverting to the appellant and could not allege criminal breach of trust or cheating when the essential ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC—entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, and fraudulent intention at inception—were wholly absent, further noting that cheating and breach of trust are mutually exclusive and cannot coexist on identical facts; the Court held that the dispute was purely civil, already the subject of a pending civil suit, and that the criminal complaint was filed mala fide to exert pressure, squarely falling within multiple Bhajan Lal categories for quashing, especially where allegations are absurd, no offence is disclosed, and proceedings are maliciously instituted; emphasising that criminal law cannot be used as a weapon for private vendetta and referring to concerns about misuse of criminal justice machinery, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the entire criminal case, concluding that continuation of prosecution would amount to undue harassment and abuse of process.
Inder Chand Bagri v. Jagadish Prasad Bagri & Another, decided on : 24-11-2025