19.08.2026 Serial no. 125 [Srimanta] Ct. No. - 39 In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side CRR 3952 of 2024 Subhas Das Vs. State of West Bengal and Anr. Mr. Koushik Roy, Ms. Sangita Ray, Advocates … … For the Petitioner. Mr. Kallol Mondal, Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee, Mr. Suman Chakraborty, Advocates … …For the State. 1. Memo of evidence, filed by the State, is taken on record. 2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the charge-sheet being Charge-Sheet No. 172/2023 dated 31.03.2023 under Sections 341/325/323/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of Madhyamgram Police Station Case No. 38/2023 dated 16.01.2023 corresponding to GR Case No. 124 of 2023 pending before the learned Court of 1st Judicial Magistrate at Barasat, North 24-Parganas, the petitioner filed this revisional application under Sections 528/438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that on 14th January, 2023 while the petitioner was working in the respective department of the concerned Vishal Mega Mart at around 9:20 P.M. he heard some chaos at the exit way of said Mart, Madhyamgram and he went to check, saw that all the other staffs of the Mart have gathered nearby the 2 exit way. The petitioner further heard from the other staffs of the concerned Mart that victim being opposite party no. 2 herein came to the Vishal Mega Mart, Madhyamgram. At the entryway of Vishal Mega Mart, she was asked to lock/loop her bag by the security person concerned and, thereafter, she entered the Mart. While the opposite party no. 2 herein was leaving the Mart, the exit scan machine started to beep. Subsequently, the security person concerned stopped her and having doubt on her, the Departmental Manager of the concerned Mart, namely, Shibayan Mondal asked the security person to check her bag and while checking her bag, opposite party no. 2 herein was resisting vehemently and shouting that she would let her bag be checked only in the presence of the Police Authority. The Departmental Manager called the Police, soon after Police came and took the lady to the police station, thereafter Police left her. 4. Due to such reason after two days a false case was registered against the present petitioner including two other female accused. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation is out and out false. During investigation, petitioner also complied with the notice issued under Section 41(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 2nd February, 2023. Therefore, there is no case at all against the present petitioner. He prays for quashing of the proceeding and charge-sheet to prevent the abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State produces the case diary and submits that there are sufficient materials collected during the investigation, 164 statement of the victim girl was also recorded, who has specifically named the present petitioner with regard to the 3 alleged offences. Therefore, the case has no merit to quash the proceeding. 7. Heard the submission of the learned Advocate of the respective parties and on perusal of the materials on record and the case diary, this Court finds the allegations made in the FIR disclose cognizable offence. Furthermore, during investigation sufficient materials were collected against the present petitioner which establish the prima facie case of the alleged offence punishable under Sections 341/325/323/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, this Court finds the revisional application is devoid of merits. Furthermore, charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 341/325/323/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner and other co-accused persons. 8. Accordingly, the revisional application being CRR No. 3952/2024 is dismissed. Connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of. 9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 10. Case diary, if any, be returned to the learned counsel for the State. 11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Trial Court. 12. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 13. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)