IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

C.R.R. 5236 of 2025

Gopal Poddar

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and Anr.

For the petitioner : Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Soubhik Mitter, Adv. Ms. Rajnandini Das, Adv.

Ms. S. Dutta, Adv.

Ms. Arushi Rathode, Adv.

Ms. P. Singh, Adv.

Ms. N. Acharya, Adv.

Mr. K. Bapuli, Adv.

Heard on : 13.01.2026 Judgment on : 16.01.2026

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.:-

1. The instant revisional application has been filed at the behest of one Gopal Poddar, one of the accused in G.R. Case No. 3305 of 2015 arising out of Titagarh Police Station Case No. 425 of 2015 dated June 12, 2015 under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C.’).

2. It was the allegation in the written complaint lodged by the private opposite party that one agent of a company called Ramel Industries Limited offered several plans and schemes to the de-facto complainant and solicited his investment in the company. The company had appointed several field workers as agents to motivate people to invest in the company in order to receive financial benefits. The private opposite party was also induced fraudulently and dishonestly by the accused persons including the petitioner to invest in the company. Accordingly, the private opposite party invested the money in different schemes offered by the company at different times. Similarly, a friend of the private opposite party and his wife also invested money in different schemes of the company. The private opposite party had invested a sum of 8,83,000/- in various plans and schemes of the company between November 20, 2011 and February 28, 2013. His friend invested a sum of 1,15,500/-. The agents of the company also issued policy certificates in this regard. Later on, the private respondent came to know that the operations of the company had closed its operation without making payments to the investors. The written complaint also stated that the agent, namely, Achinta Mondal was working as per the directions of other accused persons including the petitioner who were the directors of the company.

3. On the basis of such complaint by the private opposite party, which was filed before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore (for short, ‘ACJM’) and was forwarded to the concerned police station under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), Titagarh Police Station Case No. 425 of 2015 dated June 12, 2015 under Sections

420/406/120B of the I.P.C. was registered.

4. Police took up investigation of the case and on completion of such investigation submitted charge-sheet. Accordingly, learned ACJM proceeded to take cognizance of the offences under Section 420/406/120B of the I.P.C. against the accused persons including the present petitioner, by an order passed on August 7, 2025.

5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the compliant was lodged and forwarded in terms of the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Relying upon a decision reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 (Priyanka Srivastava And Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Others), learned Senior Advocate submits that the learned ACJM mechanically forwarded the complaint lodged by the private opposite party to the police authorities for investigation without applying his judicial mind. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner also relied upon 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 4861 (Mukul Roy vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) on the self-

same proposition.

6. Besides that, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner also contended that the private opposite party was persuaded to invest money in a company on behalf of such company. However, such company has not been arrayed as an accused by the private opposite party. In that view of the fact, the petitioner allegedly being a director of such company cannot be arrayed as an accused.

7. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner furth