22.07.2026 Item no.5 Ct. No.237 AKG C.R.R. 171 of 2026 With CRAN 1 of 2026 Mohammad Arif Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin, Mr. Firdaush Ahmed ……for the Petitioner Mr. Subir Ganguly …for the State Though a charge sheet has been filed in the present case by the investigating agency, it appears that the investigation has failed to uncover the truth or satisfactorily resolve the matter. Opposite Party No. 2 (the de facto complainant) filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, alleging, inter alia, that during the period from 2010 to 2012, he, a permanent resident of East Midnapur, West Bengal, was admitted to the M.Sc. (Chemistry) programme at Shri Faiyaz Hussain (P.G.) College, Nidhauli Kalan, Etah, affiliated with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra, Uttar Pradesh. Opposite Party No. 2 further alleged that he received a show- cause notice dated December 10, 2019, from the Income Tax Department in relation to the Assessment Year 2012–2013, alleging that he had deposited an aggregate sum of Rs. 2 10,40,000/- in two savings bank accounts maintained with Canara Bank, Nidhauli Kalan, Etah. The de facto complainant alleged that two bank accounts had been opened in his name without his knowledge: Account No. 0196101021613 (IFSC: CNRB0000196) and Account No. 0196101021708, both linked to his PAN No. BEJPC8990M. He asserted that he had no knowledge whatsoever of the opening or operation of the said accounts or of the transactions carried out therein. Subsequently, an assessment order dated December 27, 2019, was passed against him under Sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the relevant Income Tax Officer, assessing his income at Rs. 10,68,270/- for the said financial year. Pursuant to an order passed by the learned Magistrate, CID Cyber Crime Police Station Case No. 08 of 2022 dated August 8, 2022, corresponding to B.G.R. No. 3406 of 2022, was registered under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Upon completion of the investigation, the investigating agency submitted Charge Sheet No. 01 of 2024 dated January 15, 2024, under the aforesaid provisions against the Branch Manager of Canara Bank as well as against the petitioner, who was serving as the Principal of Shri Faiyaz Hussain (P.G.) College. Interestingly, despite submitting the charge sheet against the petitioner, the investigating officer categorically recorded therein that the allegations against the petitioner had not been 3 substantiated and that no offence was found to have been committed by him upon due investigation. Mr. Quasimuddin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that it is an admitted position that the petitioner, in the ordinary course of his official duties, merely issued an introductory letter in favour of Opposite Party No. 2 for the purpose of opening the bank accounts. He submits that, as a matter of established practice, the college used to issue introductory letters in favour of students who had come from other States to pursue their studies at the institution, enabling such bona fide students to open and operate bank accounts for their personal use. Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate appearing for the State, submitted that the investigating officer was unable to carry the investigation any further because the two relevant bank accounts had been closed nearly ten years prior to the commencement of the investigation. The bank authorities informed the investigating officer that, in accordance with their record-retention policy, all documents relating to the said accounts, except the statements of account, had been destroyed. A bare perusal of the assessment order dated December 27, 2019, indicates that although it records a finding that the accounts were operated by the de facto complainant, there is nothing on record to suggest that such finding was supported by any material before the Assessing Officer. 4 It appears that the consistent case of the de facto complainant before the Income Tax Authorities was that he had no knowledge whatsoever of any transactions carried out through the aforesaid two bank accounts. The charge sheet itself does not implicate the petitioner in the commission of any offence. The investigation revealed that the petitioner's role was confined to issuing an introductory letter to the bank authorities for the purpose of opening the bank accounts. The mystery surrounding the opening and operation of the aforesaid two bank accounts remained unresolved. Nevertheless, having regard to the opinion recorded by the investigating officer and the materials collected during the course of investigation, this Court is of the considered view that no case has been made out against the petitioner warranting the continuation of the present criminal proceedings. Accordingly, CRR 171 of 2026 and CRAN 1 of 2026 are allowed and stand disposed of. Charge Sheet No. 01 of 2024 dated January 15, 2024, submitted under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, together with all consequential proceedings arising out of CID Cyber Crime Police Station Case No. 08 of 2022 dated August 8, 2022, corresponding to B.G.R. No. 3406 of 2022, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed. 5 Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Kausik Chanda, J.)