IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDITION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR CRR 507 of 2024 Arup Raha -Vs.-

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arnab Saha Md. Shoaib Akhtar For the State : Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Ld. APP Mr. Abhijit Sarkar Hearing concluded on : 30.07.2025 Judgment on : 02.08.2025 Uday Kumar, J.:-

1. The present revisional application, has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (akin to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeks quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of General Register Case No. 627 of 2024, originated from Alipurduar Police Station Case No. 135 of 2024, dated April 3, 2024, under Sections 406, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and is currently pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipurduar.

2. The essence of the Petitioner's contention is that the criminal proceedings initiated against him are patently false, fabricated, and constitutes a flagrant abuse of the process of law, thereby occasioning a gross miscarriage of justice. It is asserted that the criminal complaint is a malicious attempt to lend a criminal colour to what is, at its core, a civil dispute.

3. The factual matrix, as delineated by the Petitioner, he being the owner of two vehicles, namely, a Maruti Suzuki Baleno (WB 70P 2424) and a Maruti Alto (WB 70H 1212), entered into an agreement with Opposite Party No. 2 for the sale of the Maruti Suzuki Baleno. Opposite Party No. 2 took possession of the Maruti Suzuki Baleno upon payment of an advance money, with a promise to settle the remainder and effectuate ownership transfer. This promise, however, allegedly remained unfulfilled. Subsequently, the Petitioner was purportedly persuaded to hand over the Maruti Alto under similar assurances, which too were allegedly reneged upon, leading to the forceful and illegal detention of both vehicles by Opposite Party No. 2.

4. In response to this alleged illegal detention, the Petitioner took recourse to law, filing a petition under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Petition No. 22/2024) on March 4, 2024, before the learned Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Alipurduar, for the recovery of his vehicles. The Magistrate, by an order of the same date, directed the Alipurduar Police Station to recover the vehicles by issuing a search warrant. Pursuant to this order, both vehicles were voluntarily surrendered by Opposite Party No. 2 to the Alipurduar Police Station on March 28 and March 29, 2024, respectively.

5. The Petitioner thereafter applied for the release of the seized vehicles.

Crucially, on April 3, 2024, the Officer-in-Charge of Alipurduar Police Station submitted a "no objection" report for the release of the vehicles to the Petitioner. Following this, on April 4, 2024, the learned Sub- Divisional Executive Magistrate ordered the release and handover of both vehicles to the Petitioner, who duly took possession.

6. It is at this juncture that the pivotal and indeed suspicious aspect of the matter arises. On April 3, 2024, the very day the police expressed their "no objection" to the release of the vehicles to the Petitioner, Opposite Party No. 2 lodged a written complaint. This complaint precipitated the registration of Alipurduar Police Station Case No. 135 of 2024 against the Petitioner under Sections 406, 420, and 506 IPC. The FIR, inter alia, alleged that Opposite Party No. 2 had advanced a sum of Rs. 7,90,000/- for the vehicles, which the Petitioner dishonestly retained without transferring ownership, evidencing a dishonest intention from the very inception, and further, that the Petitioner had criminally intimidated him on March 8, 2024.

7. Subsequent to the registration of the FIR, the Petitioner contends that no mandatory notice under Section 41A of the CrPC (now Section 35 BNSS) was served upon him, compelling his s