IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CRR 145 OF 2025

RACHIT GOYAL

VS

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Surendra Kr. Sharma, Adv.

For the State : Ms. Rituparna Ghosh, Adv.

Mr. Santanu Talukdar, Adv.

For the de facto

Complainant : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Adv.

Ms. Rajashree Kajaria, Adv.

Mr. Dipanjan Dutt, Adv.

Ms. Vrinda Kedia, Adv.

Last heard on : 09.09.2025 Judgement on : 24.09.2025

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J. :-

1. The present petitioner being the accused No. 3 has filed this application under

Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita ,2023 for quashing of the F.I.R being number 55/24 dated 2.5.2024, lodged with Mejia Police Station registered as G.R Case No .614 of 2024 , Bankura, West Bengal under sections 409/420/120B, IPC by the Opposite Party ,pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bankura to strike off the name of the petitioner from the

said F.I.R.

2. Bereft of any details, the fact of the case pertains to a F.I.R lodged against the present petitioner being the sole proprietor of M/s Sajal Traders and deal in steel products and also is a dealer of Tata steel. The accused No.1 Siddharth Purohit was the General Manager cum State Head of the de-jure complainant company namely M/s Shyam Steel Manufacturing Limited and he resigned from the same company only on 20.3.2024. The accused no. 4 is the Area Sales Manager of the said company (Haridwar,) Uttaakhand . The accused No.2 Ajit Kumar Jain is the sole proprietor of M/s Adinath steel having Office at Dehradun, Uttarakhand. On being approached by the officials of M/s Shyam Steel company to the petitioner to become distributor of the said company he agreed to become the dealer and deposited Rs. 3 lacs on 11.9.2023 with the De-jure Company and since the business relation going smooth, as per the persuasion of the said Company he agreed to become the distributor of the company and paid ₹25 lakhs and ₹26 Lakhs in total ₹51, lakhs through RTGS to the complainant company as security for distributorship of the said company.

3. However, despite receiving such amount, no material was supplied to the petitioner and also did not provide distributorship as agreed and the request, was made to refund the security amount of ₹51 lakhs or to provide distributorship. He was assured by said Siddharth Purohit of the de-jure company to refund the said amount on 23.10.23 through WhatsApp. It is the further case of the petitioner that through email dated 25 April 2024 once again request was made to refund ₹51,32,000 along with the dealership security of 3 lakhs within three days from the date of such email and also informed the de-jure complainant that he is not interested to be the guarantor and action will be taken against Shyam steel manufacturing Limited. After being informed about the intention of the present petitioner, Shyam steel manufacturing Limited made frivolous allegation against the petitioner and lodged the complaint dated 2.5.2024 with Mejia police station where he is included as accused no. 3.

4. In the meantime, the petitioner issued the legal notice on 23.8.2024, through his advocate upon the said de-jure com company. The petitioner also received the notice under Section 41 (A) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in compliance thereof, he duly appeared before the concerned police station on 21.11.2024. They said G.R case no. 614 of 2024 was taken up for hearing by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bankura on 22.11.2024 when it was observed that the Learned Session Judge, Bankura did not consider the existence of section 409 of I.P.C and accordingly directed the concerned I.O to appear in person and he appeared on 27.11.2024 and admitted that section 409 was not plausible in the said case.

5. It is submitted by the learned advocate representing the petitioner in this case that his company is not the sister concern of M/s Adinath steel as portrayed in the written compla