The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing the essential elements of alleged offenses and highlights the need for careful scrutiny of evidence before proceeding with criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the Charge Sheet and/or the entire proceedings being GR Case No. 327/17 arising out of Bidhannagar (North) Police Station Case No. 75/17 dated 20/04/2017 under Sections 406/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar.

2. In spite of due service even through the State there is no representation on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2.

3. The dispute in this case relates to a Motor Cycle, in respect of the complaint filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 stating that he had purchased a Benelli TNT 25 Motorbike on 10th August, 2016. That in good faith, he had given the said bike to the petitioner for keeping the said bike in the garage as there was some minor construction work taking place in his garage. Since September, 2016, the petitioner had not been receiving the calls of the informant as well as their common friends and the complainant found out that the petitioner had sold off the bike without any consent from the informant, by forging certain papers.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Bidhannagar (North) Police Case No. 75/17 dated 20.04.2017 under Sections 467/471/406 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered for investigation against the petitioner herein.

5. The petitioner states that the complainant had voluntarily handed over the bike and in spite of alleging that his calls were not answered, filed the case after six months, without making any attempts to recover the bike.

6. It has been specifically stated in the written complaint, that the Opposite Party No. 2 wants either his bike, or the equivalent sum of the said bike, and in such backdrop, it is pertinent to mention herein that the said motorbike in question, ever since it was handed over to the petitioner by the said informant, it was all along kept in the residence of petitioner. The petitioner always had the intention of returning the said bike to the Opposite Party No. 2, in the event he demanded the return of the same. Furthermore, even after registration of the instant case, the petitioner and his father, namely, Mr. Debashis Das, on several occasions spoke to the Opposite Party No. 2, and told him to take back the said motorbike, so that they could reach an amicable settlement in the matter. However, the Opposite Party No. 2, did not pay heed to such requests made by the petitioner, as he had the single point agenda of getting the petitioner arrested in connection with the instant case.

7. Charge Sheet has been filed being 81/2009 under Sections 406/467/471/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. It is further stated that the motorbike in question and all its related papers which are still in the name of the complainant were seized by the police on 19.06.2017.

9. Hence the prayer for quashing of the proceedings.

10. The State has placed the Case diary. Charge Sheet in this case has been filed for the commission of offences under Sections 406/467/471/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

11. The case was registered on 20.04.2017. The motor bike in dispute was received in Zimma by the complainant on 23.06.2017.

12. Tax paid invoice in respect of the vehicle is dated 8th July, 2016. Copy of the Smart Card shows that the same has been received by one Subhankar Das on behalf of the Complainant on 17.09.2016.

13. Forgery alleged is in respect of a letter issued to the Manager (Benelli) by the Complainant authorising the accused to receive the registration papers in respect of the bike.

14. The complainant has alleged that the accused has sold the bike without his consent by taking copies of the registration papers from the dealer using a fraudulent authorization letter.

15. Though the investigation has ended in a Charge Sheet, with the accused also being in police custody:-

i) There are no documents on record to support the allegation of sale of the bike.

ii) The alleged fraudulent authorization letter has no