RAJAT MAITY vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:-
HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.
CRR 1620 OF 2023
RAJAT MAITY
VS.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Sachit Talukdar, Adv.
Mr. Tirtharaj Ghosal,Adv.

For the State : Mr. Kallol Mondal, Adv.
Mr. Anamitra Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Pritam Roy, Adv.
For the Opposite
Party no. 2 : Mr. Apan Saha, Adv.

For the Opposite
Party no. 2
(CHCLSC) : Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya, Adv.
Mr. P. Roy, Adv.

Heard On : 31.08.2026
Judgement on : 13.11.2026
Uploaded on : 13.11.2026
Page 1 of 14

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.:-
1. This instant revisional application has been filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the proceeding being
Sessions case no. 445/2022, arising out of Tamluk Police Station case no.
379 dated 12.05.2022 under Section
420/406/409/467/468/471/472/473/474/475/477A/413/120B of the
Indian penal code, 1860 presently pending before the Learned Additional
Sessions Judge, 1st Court at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur.
Fact of the case
2. The petitioner was employed by a company named and styled as Adecco
India Pvt. Ltd. in the month of April, 2017. As part of his employment, the
petitioner was deputed to a company named and styled as Atyati
Technologies Pvt. Ltd. After taking into account of the petitioner’s work
record, the company appointed him as process associate at their
organisation with effect from 1.10.2021. In view of his performance and
contribution to the organisation, the petitioner was also rewarded with a
certificate appreciating the same.
3. A complaint was lodged by the Opposite Party no. 2 before the Tamluk Police
Station against one Amit Sahoo, UCO Bank Mecheda Branch and Atyati
Technologies Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at Bangalore, alleging of
commission of the offences punishable under the above mentioned
provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It was the allegation of the opposite
party no.2 that a customer service point (CSP) of UCO Bank, Mecheda
Page 2 of 14

Branch was functional in the village of Opposite Party No.2, and it was run
and managed by one Amit Sahoo of Khanjadapur. She had been visiting and
executing banking transactions through the customer service point. As an
abundant precaution track to executing transactions from the said service
point, she enquired about the same form from the Mecheda branch of the
UCO Bank in order to certain whether at all the customer service point
belong to the said Bank and branch. The branch manager of the bank
assured her that the service point is under the control of the UCO Bank
Mecheda Branch and it was set up for the convenience and for the
customers. She was further assured that banking transactions through the
said customer service point would be safe and secure. Being assured about
the same, she deposited a sum of ₹ 1,17,000/- through the said customer
service point over a period of time . Subsequently on 6.5.2022 when she
visited the service point to withdraw money, it was found that the customer
service point is under lock and key. After that she rushed to Mecheda
Branch of the UCO Bank and tried to withdraw money and then she realized
that in her account a paltry sum of Rs 1000/-is lying in her account. She
alleged that the Bank Manager evaded the accountability and further came
to learn on enquiry that Amit Sahoo who used to run the said CSP was
missing from his residence. She was further informed that an agreement
was entered into by the head office of the UCO Bank with Atyati Technology
to manage the customer service point and Amit Sahoo who used to manage
the operation of the customer service points have engineered the entire
fraud. It was surfaced that the total embezzled money from the accounts of
several depositors was to the tune of Rs. 2 Crores approximately.
Page 3 of 14

4. On the basis of such complaint, Tamluk Police Station case no. 379/2022
was registered against Amit Shaoo, UCO Bank Mecheda Branch and Atyati
Technologies Private Limited. It is the further case of the petitioner that
pursuing to a similar fraud having been committed by Amit Sahoo at said
customer service point, Kolaghat Police Station case no. 258/2022 dated
19.5.2022, under Section 420/406/409/467/468/477A/34 IPC was
registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Rama Ghorai .
5. In connection with the said proceeding the petitioner was arrested on
17.11.2022 and on completion of investigation, charge sheet submitted
against other accused persons, including the petitioners and his role
attribute was only failure to perform duty of monitoring the functioning of
the said customer service point diligently. In the charge sheet submitted in
respect of the complaint of the opposite party no.2, the only allegation
surfaced against the petitioner was failure to monitor properly the
functioning of the customer service point that was managed by Amit Sahoo.
The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk, Purba Mednipur by an order
dated 02.12.2022, committed the case to the learned Sessions Court in
terms of section 209 of Cr.P.C, 1973 and by an order dated 16.12.2022, the
Learned Sessions Judge took cognizance and transferred the same to the
court of learned Additional session judge, 1st Court Tamluk for trial.
6. The petitioner received the copies of the documents accompanying the
charge sheet in terms of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
and found no material which indicates the complicity of the petitioner either
in the nature of conspiracy or any money trail or forgery and falsification of
Page 4 of 14

accounts and doesn’t does not appear to be any foundation for proceeding
against the petitioner.
Submissions
7. The learned advocate representing the petitioner argued that the petitioner
initially wasn’t an employee of Atyati Technologies Private Limited,
responsible for monitoring a customer service point UCO Bank’s Mecheda
Branch. The present petitioner was not named in the FIR and was
implicated in the matter during investigation and made an accused in the
charge sheet. The petitioner’s role was to look after the functioning of the
CSP. The Investigating officer excepting dereliction of duty found no other
materials against him.
8. It is contended by the Learned Advocate that the essential ingredients to
attract Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are (i) dishonest
inducement to deliver property or to make, alter, or destroy any valuable
security or anything which is sealed or is capable of being converted into a
valuable security and (ii) mens rea of the accused at the time of making the
inducement. The ingredients necessary to make out an offence under
Section 406 of the Indian penal code were also not followed as no property
was entrusted on the present petitioner or any materials found to establish
any misappropriation or breach of contract or violation of any law. In
addition even if anything was found that should be applicable, not against
the present petitioner, but against the other accused in terms of the
allegations levelled against them. Accordingly prayed for quashing of entire
proceeding.
Page 5 of 14

9. On behalf of prosecution objection has been raised since the charge sheet
has been submitted on conclusion of investigation and the case is now
pending before the Learned Sessions Judge for framing of the charges
against the present petitioner, after hearing the parties. It is further
submitted that in order to test the veracity of the materials collected against
him, he should appear before the court. The further contention is that the
control of investigation of the case was assumed by CID, West Bengal crime,
West Bengal Org. no. 558(A)/CS dated 21.6.2022 considering the extent of
the offences DDI, Purba Medinipur was entrusted to investigate the case. It
is further submitted that the de facto complainant is a village lady and a
fraud perpetrated over 3000 people and embezzlement is to the tune of Rs
200 Crores approximately and there is further scope of investigation.
Therefore, at this stage, if the prayer of the petitioner is allowed, several
bona fide customers will be highly prejudiced and it would have an societal
impact.
Analysis
10. Heard the submissions. The case was initiated on the basis of a complaint
lodged by one Sabina Bibi being a customer of UCO Bank, Mecheda Branch
with specific allegation about misappropriation of her deposited amount
with the CSP run by Amit Sahoo and she believed that Amit Sahoo in
collusion with UCO Bank Mecheda Branch and Atyati Technologies Pvt.Ltd
conspired to misappropriate a substantial amount of money and several
person were cheated by them. It is seen from the case diary that
subsequently the control of investigation of this case was assumed by CID
Page 6 of 14

West Bengal on 21.6.2022 as per order of Crime, West Bengal Org. No
557(A)/CS dated 21.6.2022. The Inspector/DDI Purba Medinipur retired
from his service on 31.12.22 and subsequent investigating officer took up
the further investigation as per order of superiors, CID ,W.B vide crime W.B
Org no. 1137/CI dated 30/12/2022.
11. It is evident that the principal accused named in the written complaint is
Amit Sahoo and the present petitioner being an employee of Atyati
Technologies Private Limited Mecheda Branch, whose name has been
surfaced in course of investigation. The petitioner originally joined in a
company name and styled as Adecco India Private Limited in the year 2017,
and as part of his employment, he was deputed by the said company to
Atyati Technologies Private Limited and subsequently taking into his work
record, he was deputed to the said company and was appointed as a
Process Associate at their organisation with effect from 1.10.2021. The
connection between Amit Sahoo and the present petitioner is drawn as a
customer service point of UCO Bank Mecheda Branch was functional at the
village of the complainant and it was run and managed by Amit Sahoo who
was also engaged in the operation of a different Customer Service Point at
UCO Bank Mecheda Branch in a village which fell under the jurisdiction of
Kolaghat Police Station and another case started against him for causing
similar nature of fraud . In course of Investigation it was found there was
an agreement executed between Amit Sahoo and Atyati Technology Private
Limited .The Investigating authority collected the necessary copies of
documents and considering the involvement of the number of victims who
Page 7 of 14

have suffered due to a fraud committed by said Amit Sahu and CSP,
which was later on shut down, the investigation was taken control of by the
CID, West Bengal.
12. In the meantime, on the basis of the complaint lodged with the Kolaghat
Police Station and petitioner was arrested and later on released upon
executing bail Bond. The materials collected in course of investigation
specifically attributed the present petitioner being unable to maintain his
duty properly as a responsible person to look after the CSP, as per report of
the Territory manager of Atyati Technologies Private Limited Mecheda
Branch. Names of several of Bank officials also surfaced during
investigation. The present petitioner was arrested and later was released on
bail. In course of investigation, it was revealed that said Atyati Technology
Private Limited had been engaged as business correspondences to look after
the said CSP, which was run by accused Amit Sahoo, and it is also clear
that the present petitioner and Sourav Sinha were entrusted with
responsibility to look after the CSP of Amit Sahoo from time to time.
13. The Learned Court took cognizance on 16.12.22 and copy supplied on
commitment on 2.12.22 and the next date was fixed for appearance of the
accused persons on 17.8.2026.
14. Fact remains in the present case that the charge-sheet was submitted
against the petitioner both under Section 420/406 along with other penal
charges and in view of the celebrated decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Page 8 of 14

1
Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh both the
charges cannot go simultaneously. It was held therein which has been
reiterated in the case of Arshad Neyaz Khan vs State of Jharkhand &
2
Anr. that-
“This Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 10 SCC 690 observed that there is a
distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating.
For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of
making false or misleading representation i.e. since
inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of
entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach
of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the
property, and he dishonestly misappropriates the same.
Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or
dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver a
property. In such a situation, both offences cannot co-exist
simultaneously. Consequently, the complaint cannot
contain both the offences that are independent and
distinct. The said offences cannot co-exist simultaneously
in the same set of facts as they are antithetical to each
other.”
However the Learned Court has not yet framed the charge against the
accused person since the entire proceeding remained stayed by virtue of an
order passed in the instant revisional application.
15. Considering the extent of the offences and its effect on the village people
with regard to the embezzlement of huge amount of money which were
deposited with the CSP run by the Principle accused and to be supervised

1
(2024) 10 SCC 690
2
2025 INSC 1151
Page 9 of 14

and monitored by the petitioner, it is very much necessary that this court be
very much cautious in exercising the inherent jurisdiction to quash the
proceeding at the threshold when on completion of investigation charge
sheet has been submitted against the petitioner.
16. Factual matrix unveils execution of an agreement executed between two
companies entrusting the petitioner with the responsibility to look CSP of
Amit Sahoo hence any negligence or failure on his part in discharge of
such duties resulting in non-performance and deficiency of services
cannot be viewed in isolation .Such acts may have paved the way of the
principal accused person, Amit Sahoo in perpetrating such alleged offence
thereby causing financial loses and hardship to several persons . The
complicity of the petitioner in the commission of offence of cheating by
hatching a conspiracy cannot be ruled out at early of this stage when prima
facie the charges have been established.
3
17 . In the decision of Haji Iqbal versus State of UP where duty was laid
down to the Court while assessing an application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and in paragraph 15 to 17 it was observed and
held that-
“15. At this stage, we would like to observe
something important. Whenever an accused
comes before the Court invoking either the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

3
(2023) 20 SCC 209,
Page 10 of 14

to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings
quashed essentially on the ground that such
proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious
or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court
owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a
little more closely.
16. We say so because once the complainant
decides to proceed against the accused with an
ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance,
etc., then he would ensure that the
FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the
necessary pleadings. The complainant would
ensure that the averments made in the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients
to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or
not.
17. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the
Court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the
record of the case over and above the averments
and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection try to read in between the lines.
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the
Constitution need not restrict itself only to the
stage of a case but is empowered to take into
Page 11 of 14

account the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation.
Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple
FIRs have been registered over a period of time.
It is in the background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes
importance, thereby attracting the issue of
wreaking vengeance out of private or personal
grudge as alleged.”
18. From the nature of the allegations and the materials collected, this court
do not find any frivolous or vexatious ground for initiating such complaint
against the present petitioner or that it was instituted with ulterior motive
for wreaking vengeance as there are multiple complaint against the accused
persons and the customers of UCO Bank were defrauded and are the worst
sufferer.
19. On behalf of the Prosecution it was contended that if the petitioner would
have looked after the CSP properly the principle accused Amit Sahoo could
not commit the crimes as because any CSP runs through
biometrically.Accordingly amongst the other charges the charge under
section 34 IPC also been slapped against the petitioner . Admitted fact
remains he was the support Associate of Atyati Technologies Pvt. Ltd and
had an important role to discharge.
Conclusions
20 . The exercise of power under inherent jurisdiction are wide and of plenitude
and to be used in rarest of rare cases only in order to prevent the abuse of
Page 12 of 14

the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. The Learned Court
in the similar matter already framed the charge against this petitioner and
this case is pending for framing of the charge.
21. Considering the overall circumstances, the complicity of the petitioner
cannot be ruled out completely since ascertainment is necessary as to
whether the negligence in discharging duty was deliberate to pave the way to
the Principle accused to commit the offences and hence this Court do not
find it appropriate to quash the entire proceeding. It would be appropriate if
the Learned Trial Judge considering the available materials and after giving
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the point of framing of charge
pass necessary order. Primarily it can be said that the petitioner is not a
public servant or Banker, merchant or agent and in terms of the definition
no charge can be framed under section 409 IPC against him. Similarly in
terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court both the charges for
cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot go simultaneously and this
aspects also needs to be decided by the Learned Session Judge while framing
the charges. However, liberty is given to the Court to act in accordance with
law without being influenced by any observations made hereinabove.
22. Hence this Court do not consider it a fit case at this stage to quash the
entire proceeding against the petitioner at the threshold.
23. The Ld. Trial Judge is directed to fix a date for hearing on the point framing
of charge and to do the needful in the list of the settled proposition of law.
The petitioner will be at liberty to take all points at the time of hearing on the
point framing of charge.
Page 13 of 14

24. Accordingly this revisional application stands rejected without any costs.
25. All connected pending applications are also disposed of.
26. Case Diary be returned.
27. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded
from the official website of this Court.


[CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]
Page 14 of 14