Dhaka, Aug 24 (V7N)- The High Court has ruled that criminal proceedings can continue alongside civil litigation when fraud, embezzlement or breach of trust is allegedly committed with dishonest intent in connection with a business transaction or partnership agreement.
The High Court made the observation in its full judgment in the case of Md. Shah Alam vs State and others. The 17-page judgment was published on Sunday.
Earlier, on February 26, a High Court bench comprising Justice Md. Bazlur Rahman and Justice Syed Hasan Zubair had delivered the short judgment.
The case concerns Shah Alam, owner of a shop at Gausia Market on Mirpur Road in Dhaka, and cloth trader Md. Zahid Khan. According to the case documents, Zahid began operating the business under a partnership arrangement involving a share of the shop's proceeds.
In 2012, Shah Alam allegedly agreed to sell the shop to Zahid for Tk 17 lakh. Zahid subsequently paid a total of Tk 86 lakh to Shah Alam at different times in connection with the agreement.
When Shah Alam allegedly delayed transferring ownership of the shop, the shop owners' association intervened and decided that Zahid's outstanding dues should be paid. Shah Alam, however, allegedly denied receiving the full amount and disputed the existence of the agreement.
Zahid subsequently filed a criminal complaint against Shah Alam at the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court in Dhaka, alleging, among other things, fraud, misappropriation and threats.
Following an investigation and hearing, a Metropolitan Magistrate ordered the case to proceed by framing charges against Shah Alam.
In 2024, Shah Alam approached the High Court under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash the case and suspend the lower court's order. His lawyers argued that disputes arising from business accounts or partnership agreements are essentially civil matters and should not be dealt with through criminal proceedings.
During the final hearing, however, lawyer Md. Niaz Morshed, appearing for Zahid Khan, argued that accepting money with dishonest intentions from the outset and subsequently misappropriating it may constitute a criminal offence. He cited several precedents of the Appellate Division in support of the argument.
The High Court, in its judgment, said that while considering an application under Section 561A, the court primarily examines the allegations contained in the complaint.
According to the judgment, the allegations in this case contain elements of fraudulent intention, dishonest conduct and embezzlement from the beginning of the partnership arrangement. Therefore, the matter cannot simply be treated as a civil dispute.
The court further observed that disputed questions—including whether Shah Alam was actually the owner of the shop and whether he received the money claimed by the complainant—must be determined through evidence during the trial. Such matters cannot be conclusively decided by the High Court at the stage of considering the application to quash the proceedings.
The court also found that the charges framed by the subordinate court were made in accordance with law and were sufficient for the accused to face trial.
The judgment concluded that the criminal proceedings should not be stayed merely on the ground that a civil remedy is also available.
The High Court therefore rejected the argument that the case was exclusively a civil dispute and allowed the criminal proceedings to continue.
END/SMA/AJ
