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 1619 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, Ld.P.P.
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 16

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. 461/2022, arising out of Kolaghat Police Station case no.
258 dated 19.5.2022, under Sections 420/406/413/468/477A/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. A complaint was lodged by the Opposite
Party no.2 before the Kolaghat 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 Sections 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 Branch was functional in the village of Opposite Party No.2, and it
Page 2 of 16

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 ascertain 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 of the
customers. She was further assured that banking transactions through the
state customer service point would be safe and secure and being assured
about the same, she deposited a sum of ₹ 39, 968/- through the said
customer service point. 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 went to Mecheda Branch and
after obtaining a withdrawal slip, she realised that her account did not have
funds. It was further found from the withdrawal slip that on 1.5.2022, Amit
Sahoo had withdrawn ₹ 25,000/- from her account. She alleged that bank
manager expressed his helplessness by stating that the agreement entered
into by the head office of the UCO Bank with Atyati Technology to manage
the customer service point and Amit Shahoo, who used to manage the
operation of the customer service points have engineered the entire fraud.
3. On the basis of such complaint, Kolaghat Police Station case started 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 Shahoo at said customer service
Page 3 of 16

point, Tamluk Police Station case no. 379 dated 12.5.2022, under Section
420/406/409/467/468/471/472/473/474/475/477A was registered on
the basis of a complaint lodged by Sabina Bibi. In connection with the said
proceeding the petitioner was arrested on 17.11.2022 and on completion of
investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against other accused
persons, including the petitioner and the role attributed was only failure to
perform his duty of monitoring the functioning of the said customer service
point diligently.
4. The petitioner was shown arrested on 25.11.2022, and he constrained to file
an application for bail and was released on bail on 1.2.2023. 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 Chief Magistrate, Tamluk, Purba Mednipur by an
order dated 16.12.2022, committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge
in terms of section 209 of Cr.P.C, 1973 and by an order dated 22.12.2022,
the Learned Sessions Judge took cognizance and transferred the same to
the Court of learned Additional Session Judge, 1st Court, Tamluk for trial
and disposal. By an order dated 6.3.2023, the Learned Judge framed Charge
against the petitioner and other accused for commission of offences
punishable under Section 420/406/413/468/477A/120B of the Indian
Penal Code.
5. The petitioner received the copies of the documents accompanying the
charge sheet in terms of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Page 4 of 16

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
accounts and doesn’t does not appear to have any foundation for proceeding
against the petitioner. Accordingly filed this revisional application.
Submissions
6. The learned Advocate representing the petitioner argued that the petitioner
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 only and in the charge sheet also excepting
dereliction of duty, no other allegation has been levelled against him. It is
further submitted that the test to be applied at the stage of consideration of
charges that of grave suspicion and a prima facie case is being made out.
However, from perusal of the materials and record as collected in course of
investigation, it is evident that the test was not been satisfied qua the
petitioner and the learned Judge grossly erred in framing charge against the
petitioner. 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 are not
followed as no property was entrusted on the present petitioner or there has
been any misappropriation or breach of contract or violation of any law. If
Page 5 of 16

anything can be found that should be applicable not against the present
petitioner, but against the other accused in terms of the allegations levelled
against them. In addition no allegation to attract Section 413 of IPC as no
prior complaint was in existence against him. That apart question of Forgery
for the purpose of cheating can be found and the charge under Section 477
A is not applicable against him.
7. On behalf of prosecution objection has been raised since the charge sheet
has been submitted on conclusion of investigation and the learned Judge
has framed the charges against the present petitioner after hearing the
parties and hence prayed that in order to test the veracity of the materials
collected against him, he must face the trial. It is further submitted that the
control of investigation of the case was assumed by CID, West Bengal as per
order of Crime West Bengal org. no. 558(A)/CS dated 21.6.2022 and the
DDI, Purba Medinipur is the inspector who investigated the case. It is
further submitted that the de facto complainant is a village lady and a fraud
perpetrated over 3000 people and also there is further scope of investigation.
Therefore, at this stage, if the prayer of the petitioner is allowed, the trial
would be severely affected.
Analysis
8. Heard the submissions. The case was initiated on the basis of a complaint
lodged by one Rama Ghorai being a customer of UCO Bank, Mecheda
Branch with specific allegation against one Amit Sahoo for withdrawal of
₹ 25,000/- from her account on 1.5.2022, and further that several person
were cheated by him. According to her, Amit Sahoo along with UCO bank
Page 6 of 16

Mecheda branch and Atyati Technologies Private Limited, made conspiracy
and cheated her money and misappropriate the same. It is seen from the
case diary that subsequently the control of investigation of this case was
assumed by CID West Bengal on 21.6.2022 as per order of Crime West
Bengal detailing inspector, Arunjit Ghosh, DDI Purba Medinipur as IO of
this case. He 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 WB Org. no. 713/1/CS dated 30/12/2022.
9. It is evident that the principal accused named in the written complaint is
Amit Sahoo and the present petitioner is 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. 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 petitioner was also rewarded
with a certificate appreciating his performance. 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 Tamluk
Police Station and another case started against him for causing similar
Page 7 of 16

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
have suffered due to a fraud committed by said Amit Sahoo and CSP,
which was later on shut down, the investigation was taken control of by the
CID, West Bengal.
10. In the meantime, on the basis of another complaint the Tamluk Police
Station case started against the same person. 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. Since the present petitioner was arrested in
connection with the other complaint on 17.11.2022, and enlarged on bail by
an order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this
Court, he was shown arrested on 25.11.2022 in the instant case. 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.
11. In the present case, the date was fixed for consideration of charge on
6.3.2023 and the present petitioner was present and the principal accused
Page 8 of 16

was also produced from JC Jail custody. The learned Magistrate considered
the submissions made by the learned prosecution and the defence counsel
and after going through the materials on record and the documents was of
the opinion that there is good ground for presuming that the accused
persons have committed alleged offences punishable under those sections of
the Indian penal code and date was fixed for production and evidence of
CSW1.
12. 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 the Learned Magistrate also framed the charge on these
sections. In view of the celebrated decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
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

1
(2024) 10 SCC 690
2
2025 INSC 1151
Page 9 of 16

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.”
13. The Learned Sessions Court framed the charges against both the accused
persons not individually but collectively when admittedly the role of the
petitioner was to supervise and monitor the CSP. Therefore it is very much
necessary that this Court should be very much cautious in exercising the
inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceeding at the threshold when on
completion of investigation a charge sheet has been submitted and the
Learned Court has framed the charges.
14. Considering the nature of allegation and the evidences collected during
investigation this Court is not satisfied to accept that the role attributed to
the petitioner can be equated with that of the principle accused, particularly
in respect of the charge framed against him under Section 406 IPC in as
much as no property was ever entrusted to the petitioner. The essential
ingredients of entrustment which is a prerequisite for constituting an
offence of criminal breach of trust under section 406 IPC is prima facie
absent as he did not receive the amount of Rs. 25000/-from the particular
account or from any other nor entrusted to keep any amount. No iota of
Page 10 of 16

materials can be found against him with regard to the said charge. Similarly
the charge has been framed against the petitioner along with the principle
accused for commission of offence under Section 413 of the IPC when no
ingredients to constitute the said offence can be found against him or to
substantiate that he was a habitual receiver or dealer with stolen property.
There is no prior complaint found against excepting the other complaint
within a gap of 7 days. Nothing was rescued from this petition.
15. However in view of the existing agreement between two companies and
the present petitioner being entrusted by virtue of such agreement with the
responsibility to look CSP of Amit Sahoo, 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 .In such circumstances the petitioner ought to face the
trial in order to establish the nature and extent of his involvement
,particularly whether the negligence attributable to him was deliberate and
intentional or merely an act of negligence .Therefore the complicity of the
petitioner in the commission of offence of cheating by hatching a conspiracy
cannot be ruled out at this stage .
3
16. 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

3
(2023) 20 SCC 209
Page 11 of 16

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
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.
Page 12 of 16

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
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.”
17. 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 it was instituted with ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance as there are more than one complaint against the
accused persons and the customers of UCO Bank were defrauded and are
the worst sufferer. 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
Page 13 of 16

Section 120B IPC has also been slapped against the petitioner .He was the
support Associate of Atyati Technologies Pvt. Ltd and had an important role
to discharge. So far the charge framed under Section 477/468 of IPC also no
materials to attract Section 468 can be found as the petitioner was not an
employee of UCO Bank and certainly question of forgery in respect of
document does not arise. But with regard to forging of electronic record in
question the petitioner was entrusted to monitor and supervise the
functioning of Amit Sahoo, the principle accused. At the threshold his
involvement cannot be negated specially when charge under Section 120B
IPC is framed against him.
In order to bring home the charge under Section 477A IPC the accused
must be a Clerk or Officer, Servant under employment but the petitioner
does not come within any of such category.
18. This Court at this stage find it pertinent to refer the decision of K.R
4
Purushothaman vs State of Kerala where it was observed and held that-
“13. To constitute a conspiracy, meeting of mind
of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or
an act by illegal means is the first and primary
condition and it is not necessary that all the
conspirators must know each and every detail of
conspiracy. Neither it is necessary that every one
of the conspirators takes active part in the
commission of each and every conspiratorial
acts. The agreement amongst the conspirators

4
(2005) 12 SCC 631
Page 14 of 16

can be inferred by necessary
implications………..”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case further observed that-
“14. The suspicion can not take the place of a
legal proof and prosecution would be required to
prove each and every circumstance in the chain
of circumstances so as to complete the chain. It is
true that in most of the cases, it is not possible to
prove the agreement between the conspirators by
direct evidence but the same can be inferred
from the circumstances giving rise to conclusive
or irresistible inference of an agreement between
two or more persons to commit an offence. It is
held in Noor Mohd. v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR (1971) SC 885 , that:
" in most cases proof of conspiracy is largely
inferential though the inference must be founded
on solid facts. Surrounding circumstances and
antecedent and subsequent conduct, among
other factors, constitute relevant material."”
In the light of the above it is settled that in order to prove the charge under
Section 120B IPC trial is necessary.
Conclusions
19. Having regard to the principles settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court as
discussed above and in the light of the observations made therein and after
careful consideration of the factual matrix of the present case this court is of
the opinion that the charges under section 406/413/477A IPC are not
Page 15 of 16

sustainable against the petitioner since devoid of any such ingredients but
so far the charge under Section 420/468/120B IPC are concerned this court
is not inclined to quash the charges which can only be decided after
weighing the evidences to be adduced to prove the charges by the
Prosecution.
20. Accordingly this revisional application stands allowed in part. The charges

under Section 406/413/477A IPC are quashed qua the petitioner and the
proceeding to continue against him with regard to the rest of the charges.
21. All connected pending applications are also disposed of.
22. Case Diary be returned.
23. 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 16 of 16