IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

C.R.R. 239 of 2019

Md. Shirazuddin

Versus

The State of West Bengal and Another

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandip Kr. Bhattacharya, Adv.

Mr. Dipta Dipak Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Ishwar Aaditya, Adv.

Ms. S. Dhar, Adv.

For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Kaushik Chatterjee, Adv.

Mr. Tirthankar Dey, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Anand Keshari, Adv.

Ms. Janaki Saha, Adv.

Heard on : 26.08.2025 Judgment on : 24.09.2025

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. The petitioner filed this instant revisional application under Sections

397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short CrPC), challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order dated 13.11.2018 passed by the Learned Judge, 2nd Special Court, Calcutta in Special Case No. 03 of 2017 arising out of Girish Park P.S./D.D. Case No. 307 dated

12.09.2015 under Sections 409/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. By the said impugned order, the Trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner praying for his discharge from the proceeding.

3. The brief facts of the case, relevant for the disposal of this case are to the effect that on 12.09.2015, one Manikantan Iyer, the Zonal Operations Head of IndusInd Bank Ltd. lodged a written complaint before the Girish Park Police Station, alleging inter alia therein that petitioner fraudulently encashed two Fixed Deposit accounts in the name of one Sushila Devi Bajaj amounting to Rs. 19.90 Lakhs by obtaining her signatures on blank Fixed Deposit Closure Vouchers and other documents.

4. On the basis of said signatures, the Petitioner further opened a bank account in Axis Bank, Vivekananda Road Branch, in the name of the depositor, Smt. Sushila Devi Bajaj, from where the money was withdrawn. Thus, the entire amount being allegedly siphoned off by the petitioner as a bank employee resulted in registration of FIR being Girish Park P.S. Case No. 307 dated 12.09.2015 under Sections

420/406/468/469/471 of the IPC.

5. Upon culmination of investigation, the investigating officer has submitted a charge sheet under Section 409 of the IPC against the present petitioner.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that he is innocent and the investigating officer did not find any incriminating materials against the present petitioner. Therefore, a charge sheet was submitted under section 409 of the IPC against him leaving other sections, , as there was no element of cheating or forgery against the present petitioner. There is no ingredient of the alleged offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application praying for discharge from the proceeding before the Trial Court, claiming that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the criminal case due to personal grudge.

7. During pendency of the discharge petition, an application was filed by the prosecution for adding charges under Sections 468/471 of the IPC against the present petitioner. Upon hearing the parties, the Learned Court below rejected the discharge application, observing therein that there is sufficient ground against the accused person for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 409/468/471 of IPC. Hence, this application.

8. The learned counsel representing the petitioner denies all the allegations and further raised question in connection with frivolous allegation made against him for the withdrawal or siphoning money prior to 2019 though the FIR was lodged in the year 2024 almost elaped of five years without explaining such huge delay. It would seriously caused prejudice to the petitioner and delay in lodging FIR is a good ground for quashing the whole proceeding to prevent gross abuse of process of law.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner is innocent and is, in no way, connected with the allegations levelled against him. It was furthe