Atyati Employee Tasked With Monitoring UCO Bank CSP Faces Cheating, Forgery And Conspiracy Trial As Calcutta HC Quashes Three Other Charges

The petitioner, employed by Adecco India Pvt. Ltd. and deputed to Atyati Technologies Pvt. Ltd., was assigned responsibility for monitoring a UCO Bank customer service point (CSP) operated by Amit Sahoo.

The complainant alleged that Sahoo withdrew ₹25,000 from her account after she had deposited money through the CSP; the FIR named Sahoo, the bank branch and Atyati Technologies, but not the petitioner.

Following investigation, the petitioner was charge-sheeted, principally on the allegation that he had failed to monitor the CSP.

The Sessions Court framed charges under Sections 420, 406, 413, 468, 477A and 120B IPC.

He sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the record disclosed no entrustment, misappropriation, forgery, habitual dealing in stolen property or conspiracy on his part.

Section 482 CrPC permits the High Court to examine the FIR, surrounding circumstances and investigation materials when considering whether criminal proceedings should be quashed; a court need not confine itself to the complaint’s averments.

Criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC requires entrustment of property and its dishonest misappropriation; cheating under Section 420 IPC requires dishonest or fraudulent inducement, with the requisite intention existing when the inducement is made.

The judgment, relying on Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2024) 10 SCC 690, and Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 INSC 1151, stated that Sections 406 and 420 concern distinct and antithetical bases and cannot coexist on the same set of facts.

Section 413 IPC concerns habitual dealing in stolen property, while Section 477A IPC requires the accused to be a clerk, officer or servant.

A conspiracy under Section 120B IPC may be inferred from circumstances; direct proof of agreement is not essential, but suspicion alone is insufficient and the prosecution must prove the circumstances at trial.

The Court found no material indicating that the petitioner received or was entrusted with the complainant’s money, and therefore held that the essential ingredient of entrustment under Section 406 IPC was absent.

The record also did not support an allegation that he was a habitual receiver or dealer in stolen property, as required for Section 413, or that he fell within the classes of persons contemplated by Section 477A.

By contrast, the petitioner had been assigned responsibility for monitoring the CSP, and the Court considered that his alleged failure to discharge that responsibility might have facilitated Sahoo’s conduct.

In light of the conspiracy charge and the possibility of proving the petitioner’s involvement through evidence, the Court declined to determine the remaining charges at the quashing stage.

The charges under Sections 406, 413 and 477A IPC were quashed qua the petitioner; the proceedings were permitted to continue against him under Sections 420, 468 and 120B IPC, to be determined after trial.