Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: 13 November 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Rajat Maity, employed by Adecco India Pvt. Ltd and deputed to Atyati Technologies Pvt. Ltd as Process Associate effective 1 Oct 2021.
  • Opposite Party No. 2: Complainant (identified as Sabina Bibi in the record) who lodged a complaint alleging fraud at a Customer Service Point (CSP) of UCO Bank, Mecheda Branch.
  • Accused in the main FIR: Amit Sahoo (operator of the CSP), UCO Bank Mecheda Branch, and Atyati Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
  • Alleged Fraud: The complainant deposited ₹1,17,000 through the CSP; later only ₹1,000 remained. Investigation revealed that approximately ₹2 crore was embezzled from several depositors (around 3,000 victims).
  • Criminal Charges: Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 477A, 413, 120B IPC.
  • Procedural History: Tamluk Police Station case No. 379/2022 registered; Sessions case No. 445/2022 pending before Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Tamluk. Petitioner arrested on 17 Nov 2022, later released on bail.
  • Investigation: CID West Bengal assumed control on 21 June 2022 (Crime WB Org. No 557(A)/CS). Charge‑sheet filed; petitioner’s alleged role limited to alleged failure to monitor the CSP.
  • Revisional Application: CRR 1620 of 2023 filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quash of the criminal proceedings.
  • Legal Submissions: Petitioner argued lack of mens rea and absence of entrustment; prosecution contended that charge‑sheet already filed and investigation ongoing, emphasizing the large victim base and alleged loss of ~₹200 crore (note: the text mentions both ₹2 crore and ₹200 crore; the court noted the higher figure in prosecution’s claim).
  • Judicial Analysis: Court examined precedents – Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) and Arshad Neyaz Khan vs. State of Jharkhand (2025) – stating that cheating and criminal breach of trust offences cannot coexist. Also cited Haji Iqbal vs. State of UP (2023) on the court’s duty when exercising inherent powers under Section 482.
  • Findings: No material indicating petitioner’s participation in conspiracy; only alleged dereliction of duty. Court found no basis to deem the proceeding frivolous or vexatious.

Final Outcome

  • The revisional application is rejected without costs.
  • All connected pending applications are disposed of.
  • The case diary is ordered to be returned.
  • The Learned Trial Judge is directed to fix a date for hearing on the point of framing of charge and to consider the legal propositions regarding the incompatibility of cheating and criminal breach of trust charges.

Topics: Criminal Procedure, Bank Fraud