In a judgment delivered on Monday, the Supreme Court set aside criminal proceedings against Assam businessman Inder Chand Bagri, noting that the decade-long property dispute within the Bagri family was “purely civil in nature.” The bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan said continuing the criminal case would amount to harassment, especially when no ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust were established during the hearing.
The order came in an appeal arising out of a 2018 Gauhati High Court ruling that had refused to quash the case against Bagri.
Background
The dispute dates back to 1976, when Bagri and other relatives formed a partnership firm to construct and lease out warehouses in Kamrup, Assam. Bagri contributed the land, and two godowns were later rented to the Food Corporation of India.
Read also: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Agra Man After Nearly Three Years in Jail, Flags Long Delay in Hearing
A supplementary agreement signed in 1981 allowed Bagri to exclusively use the land once the lease ended. Years later, in 2011, he sold the property to his nephew. That sale triggered litigation—first a civil suit challenging the sale deed, then in 2013, a criminal complaint alleging cheating, conspiracy, and misappropriation.
Although the High Court quashed the complaint against the nephew, it allowed the case against Bagri to continue, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the bench repeatedly asked how a partnership disagreement-already pending before a civil court-could be stretched into criminal liability. “The bench observed, ‘We fail to see any fraudulent or dishonest intention from the inception of the partnership,’” suggesting that the essential ingredient of cheating was missing.
Read also: Urgent Mentions Only Through Written Slips Except in 'Extraordinary' Cases, CJI Surya Kant Clarifies
The Court pointed out that all partners, including the complainant, had signed the 1981 agreement stating the land would return to Bagri once the FCI vacated. It added that a person cannot “blow hot and cold,” agreeing to a condition years ago but later alleging criminal intent.
Another key takeaway was the Court’s reminder that civil and criminal offences cannot be mixed merely to exert pressure. “Criminal law cannot become a tool to settle personal vendetta,” the judgment noted, cautioning against the growing misuse of criminal litigation in business and family disputes.
The judges also highlighted that the complainant had an ongoing civil suit challenging the sale deed and therefore possessed an adequate legal remedy without invoking criminal prosecution.
Read also: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against Aurangabad Lawyer, Says Relationship Was
Decision
Setting aside the Gauhati High Court order, the Supreme Court quashed the complaint filed in 2013 and all related proceedings before the Kamrup trial court. With a clear finding that no offence under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) or 420 (cheating) of the IPC was made out, the Court allowed the appeal and closed the criminal case entirely-bringing relief to the appellant after more than twelve years of litigation.
Case Title: Inder Chand Bagri v. Jagadish Prasad Bagri & Another
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5000 of 2025
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Decision Date: November 24, 2025
