Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: 13.11.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner Rajat Maity vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.; opposing parties include Amit Sahoo, UCO Bank Mecheda Branch, and Atyati Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
  • Proceedings: Revisional application CRR 1619 of 2023 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quash of Sessions case No. 461/2022 (originating from Kolaghat Police Station case No. 258 dated 19.05.2022) which alleged offences under IPC Sections 420, 406, 413, 468, 477A, and 120B.
  • Background: Rajat Maity was employed by Adecco India Pvt. Ltd from April 2017 and deputed to Atyati Technologies Pvt. Ltd. He was appointed Process Associate effective 01.10.2021 and received a performance appreciation certificate.
  • Allegations: A complaint by Rama Ghorai (customer of UCO Bank Mecheda Branch) alleged that a Customer Service Point (CSP) managed by Amit Sahoo withdrew ₹25,000 from her account on 01.05.2022 and that the CSP was operated under an agreement between UCO Bank Mecheda Branch and Atyati Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The complainant also deposited ₹39,968 at the CSP, later unable to withdraw it when the point was locked on 06.05.2022.
  • Investigation: Kolaghat Police Station registered the case; later CID West Bengal assumed control on 21.06.2022 (Crime WB Org. No. 558(A)/CS). Inspector Arunjit Ghosh (DDI, Purba Medinipur) was the investigating officer; after his retirement, a successor continued investigation per Crime WB Org. No. 713/1/CS dated 30.12.2022.
  • Arrest & Bail: Rajat Maity was arrested on 17.11.2022, shown arrested on 25.11.2022, and released on bail on 01.02.2023. The charge sheet filed on 06.03.2023 framed charges under Sections 420, 406, 413, 468, 477A, and 120B.
  • Petitioner’s Submissions: Argued he was not an employee of Atyati Technologies responsible for CSP monitoring, was not named in the FIR, and that only dereliction of duty was alleged. Contended that the ingredients of Sections 420, 406, 413, and 477A were not satisfied.
  • Prosecution’s Submissions: Emphasised that the charge sheet was filed after investigation, that the CID had taken over the case, and that the fraud affected over 3,000 people, warranting trial.
  • Court’s Analysis:
  • Recognised the principal accused as Amit Sahoo; Rajat Maity’s role was limited to supervising the CSP under an agreement between Atyati Technologies and UCO Bank.
  • Noted that no material indicated Rajat Maity’s participation in conspiracy, money trail, or forgery.
  • Cited Supreme Court judgment in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC 690 establishing that cheating and criminal breach of trust are distinct offences and cannot co‑exist on the same facts.
  • Applied this principle to conclude that Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 413 (receiving stolen property) lack the essential ingredients with respect to Rajat Maity.
  • Observed that Section 477A (forgery) requires the accused to be a clerk/officer/servant; Rajat Maity did not fall within that category.
  • Referred to Haji Iqbal vs. State of UP (2023) 20 SCC 209 and K.R. Purushothaman vs. State of Kerala (2005) 12 SCC 631 on the court’s duty to scrutinise frivolous or vexatious proceedings and the evidentiary requirements for conspiracy (Section 120B).
  • Determined that while negligence in supervising the CSP could be examined, the prosecution must still prove the elements of cheating (Section 420), forgery (Section 468), and criminal conspiracy (Section 120B).

Final Outcome

  • The revisional application is partially allowed.
  • Charges quashed against Rajat Maity: IPC Sections 406, 413, and 477A.
  • Charges retained: IPC Sections 420, 468, and 120B, which will proceed to trial.
  • All other pending applications in the matter are disposed of, and the case diary is to be returned.
  • Parties are directed to download server copies of the order from the official court website.

Topics: Legal Judgment, Criminal Procedure, Fraud Investigation