MITALI NANDI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the charge sheet being no.33 of 2021 dtd. 8/10/2021 in connection with Jalpaiguri Cyber P.S Case No.4 of 2021 dtd. 11/1/2021 under Ss. 419/420 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding the G.R No.150 of 2021 now pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that the petitioner has been charge sheeted under Ss. 419/420 of the Indian Penal Code against the complaint lodged by the opposite party no.2 herein. The complainant herein in order to sell his ancestral property at Subhas Gram, District South 24-Parganas advertised in 'magic bricks.com'. In response to the said advertisement one Rajish Dew Mandal and Soumitra Chatterjee contacted with the complainant and introduced themselves as NRIs. The complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.2,65,000.00 at different intervals as processing fees for the purpose of selling of the property through Magic bricks.com. The letter of complaint dtd. 11/1/2021 and the FIR no.4 of 2021 under Ss. 419/420 of the Indian Penal Code admittedly did not contain the name of the present petitioner that during investigation the investigating officer came to know of one Sri Pritam Mandal who in turn revealed the name of a person Sri Sudipta Chatterjee, son of Ram Chandra Chatterjee. The said Pritam Mandal has been working under Sudipta Chatterjee and is also a charge sheeted accused, has been running the fraudulent business of taking money from different individual. The said Sudipta Chatterjee after being arrested, on being interrogated revealed the name of four persons out of which one person is the present petitioner herein. It is the case of the prosecution that the present petitioner is also engaged in fraudulent activities and has been apart of the fraud committed by the F.I.R. named accused herein.

(3.) Mr. Nripen Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the bare reading of the charge sheet it would be clear that the name of the petitioner only transpired from the statement of the co-accused, the charge sheet does not reveal any such conclusive evidence from which it would be clear that the petitioner herein has been a part of the alleged fraud being committed upon the opposite party no.2. The allegation which has been leveled against petitioner are in order to malign the petitioner and force the petitioner to undergo a trial for an offence, which the petitioner was neither a part of nor has any connection. The petitioner states that the basic ingredients of Ss. 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is cheating and dishonesty. In the instant case from no corner of the said petition of complaint as well as the charge sheet it would be evident that the petitioner has committed the offences of cheating and dishonesty over the complainant at any point of time. That Sri Subrata Nandy, whose name was also taken, is the husband of the petitioner and died in the year of April, 2021. The Charge Sheet does not reveal any fact as to any amount of money of the complainant has been seized from the custody of the present petitioner or the present petitioner has in any way benefited out of the same. The instant case as has been made out is devoid of any basic ground and the investigating agency also submitted the charge without causing any proper investigation. That in view of the lacunas and discrepancies in the charge sheet, which is completely based on false and fabricated story as it appears on the face of it, the present proceeding against the petitioner should not be allowed to continue.