Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Masud Reja @ Masud Reza vs The State Of West Bengal & Another on 30 July, 2025
2025:CHC-AS:1425
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
C.R.R. 4411 of 2023
With
CRAN 2 of 2024 & CRAN 6 of 2025
Masud Reja @ Masud Reza
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Another
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Debashis Roy, Ld. PP
Ms. Faria Hossain, Adv.
Ms. Mamata Jana, Adv.
Heard on : 18.07.2025
Judgment on : 30.07.2025
2
2025:CHC-AS:1425
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:
1.
The petitioner preferred this Criminal Revisional application
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short
‘CrPC‘) seeking quashing of the investigation initiated in connection
with Kharagpur GRPS Case No. 61 of 2022 dated 15.09.2022 under
Sections 419/420/120B, adding Sections 417/467/468/471/472/
474/475 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 now pending before the
Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kharagpur,
Paschim Medinipur.
2. The factual matrix of this case, leading to the filing of this
application, is as under: –
2a. A suo-moto case was registered being Kharagpur GRPS Case
No. 61 of 2022 dated 15.09.2022 under Sections 419/420/120B of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the basis of a written complaint
lodged by the opposite party no. 2 – Bhagwan Singh, Sub-Inspector of
RPF Post, Kharagpur alleging, inter alia, that one individual was
detained by the complainant for possessing unaccounted money
amounting to approximately Rs. 2,00,000/- allegedly for the purposes
of recruitment of the candidates in the railways. Subsequently,
Sections 417/467/468/471/472/474/475 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 were added during investigation.
3
2025:CHC-AS:1425
2b. The present petitioner received two notices under Section
160 of CrPC on 29.11.2022 and 26.12.2022 from the Investigating
Officer, requiring his appearance for examination in connection with
the aforesaid case. At the same time, it came to the knowledge of the
petitioner that a Look Out Circular had been issued against him in
connection with the same case, in response, the petitioner filed an
application for Anticipatory Bail before the Hon’ble High Court at
Calcutta vide CRM (A) 216 of 2023. However, the said application was
rejected by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated
17.01.2023.
2c. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said rejection
order, the petitioner approached before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
where he was granted interim protection from arrest on 25.04.2023.
However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court eventually declined to interfere
with the rejection order of anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Calcutta
High Court.
2d. On 25.05.2023, a notice under Section 41A of the CrPC was
issued to the petitioner and the same was duly complied with on
27.05.2023. The Investigating Officer also summoned the petitioner
for providing voice sample for forensic examination of audio
conversation allegedly held between the petitioner and co-accused,
4
2025:CHC-AS:1425
Sahid Mallick on 23.06.2023, 01.07.2023 and 22.07.2023, all of
which were duly complied with by the petitioner.
2e. On 19.08.2023, another notice under Section 91 of CrPC
was issued to the petitioner directing him to hand over the mobile
phone set. The Investigating Officer seized the mobile phone set as
well as some other documents from him vide Seizure List dated
15.09.2023. However, as per the petitioner, petitioner’s name is
neither reflected in the FIR nor in the written complaint filed by the
Sub-Inspector of RPF Post, Kharagpur. The petitioner asserts that he
has no connection with the case or the allegations made therein. The
petitioner also stated that he does not know the accused person,
whose name has been mentioned in the FIR. Nevertheless, he was
harassed by the Investigating Officer from time to time by issuing
notices under Sections 160, 91 and 41A of the CrPC without
disclosing his actual status in the case. Hence, this Criminal
Revisional application.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner vehemently advanced arguments and submitted that in one
hand, the petitioner was treated as a witness and issued notice under
Section 160 of CrPC and, on the other hand, he has been treated as
52025:CHC-AS:1425
an accused and issued a notice under Section 41A of the CrPC.
Similarly, he was also issued notice under Section 91 of CrPC for the
production of mobile phone and other documents. Therefore, the
actions taken by the Investigating Officer against the present
petitioner are palpably illegal and violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, which grants every citizen of India for right to
life and liberty. Therefore, the investigation against the present
petitioner is liable to be quashed.
3a. It was further submitted that in a similar matter, a writ
petition was filed by one Rahul Chanda being WPA No. 24148 of 2023
who was also implicated in the present case. In the said case, a
notice under Section 160 of the CrPC was issued to him but later it
was set aside vide order dated 9th October, 2023 by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Hon’ble High Court. The petitioner is in no way
connected or nexus or involved with the instant case. Relying on the
precedent set in WPA 24148 of 2023, the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court was pleased to grant interim protection to the petitioner by
restraining the Investigating Officer from taking any coercive steps
against him and the said interim protection has been extended from
time to time.
3b. The learned counsel submitted that the actions of the
Investigating Officer are not legally tenable and are not permissible in
6
2025:CHC-AS:1425
law, thereby warranting the quashing of the entire investigation
insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
4. Mr. Roy, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State
vehemently opposed the prayer of the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the investigation and further
submitted that initially a notice was issued under Section 160 of the
CrPC upon the petitioner as a witness. But, in course of investigation,
some materials reveal to the effect that he was also involved in the
alleged offence along with the other accused persons. Therefore, he
has been arraigned as an accused in the instant case and when he
came to know about the said facts, he filed an application for
anticipatory bail before this Hon’ble High Court. His application for
anticipatory bail was rejected after hearing the parties by the then
Division Bench of this Court. Subsequently, it was travelled to the
Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition.
4a. During hearing, the Hon’ble Supreme Court initially granted
interim protection to the petitioner by directing that the petitioner
shall not be arrested in connection with Kharagpur GRPS Case No.
61 of 2022 dated 15.09.2022 under Sections 419/420/120B of IPC
7
2025:CHC-AS:1425
subject to deposit of Rs. 1 Lakh and the petitioner would join and
cooperate with the investigation vide order dated 25.04.2023.
4b. It was further submitted that subsequently vide order dated
11.08.2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the petitioner
Masud Reja @ Masud Reza to surrender and hand over his mobile
phone set which he had been using for the last three years as well as
the statement of the bank account (s) and account number to the
Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days from the date of the
order.
4c. Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated
20.09.2023 dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the
petitioner challenging the rejection order dated 17.01.2023 passed in
CRM (A) No. 216/2023 passed by the then Division Bench of this
High Court.
4d. Finally, the learned PP submitted that initially he was not an
accused as such, a notice under Section 160 of the CrPC was issued
requiring him to attend before the Investigating Officer for the
purpose of examination relating to the case. Subsequently, he was
arraigned as an accused, when sufficient materials were found
against him during the investigation. Therefore, a notice under
Section 41A of the CrPC was issued by the Investigating Officer.
8
2025:CHC-AS:1425
Therefore, there are no any anomalies to issue those two notices in
different occasions and different situations.
4e. The Learned PP candidly admitted that the notice under
Section 91 of the CrPC should not have been issued to the petitioner,
when he was arraigned as an accused. The caption was an
inadvertent mistake on the part of the Investigating Officer. However,
in the said notice, the Investigating Officer of this case requested the
petitioner to hand over the mobile phone set bearing IMEI No.
863711050892210 pursuant to the direction passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 11.08.2023. Therefore, the instant
Criminal Revisional application is liable to be dismissed and interim
protection granted by this Court may be vacated for proper and
smooth investigation as no charge sheet has been filed as yet.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS BY THIS COURT:
5. Heard the arguments and submissions of the learned counsels
appearing on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the record as
well as Case Diary, this Court is of the considered view that initially a
notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 160 of the CrPC for
the purpose of examination as a witness, at which time he was not an
accused. Subsequently, upon discovery of sufficient materials against
the petitioner during the course of investigation and, therefore, he
92025:CHC-AS:1425
has been arraigned as an accused in the instant case and another
notice was issued under Section 41A of the CrPC.
6. For the sake of ready reference, this Court would like to
quote Sections 160, 41A and 91 of the CrPC as under:-
Section 160 of CrPC reads as under:-
“160. Police officer’s power to require attendance
of witnesses.–(1) Any police officer making an
investigation under this Chapter may, by order in
writing, require the attendance before himself of any
person being within the limits of his own or any
adjoining station who, from the information given or
otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend
as so required:
Provided that no male person [under the age of
fifteen years or above the age of sixty-five years or a
woman or a mentally or physically disabled person]
shall be required to attend at any place other than the
place in which such male person or woman resides.(2) The State Government may, by rules made in this
behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of
the reasonable expenses of every person, attending
under sub-section (1) at any place other than his
residence.”
10
2025:CHC-AS:1425
Section 41A of CrPC reads as under:-
“41A. Notice of appearance before police officer.–
(1) [The police officer shall], in all cases where the arrest
of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-
section (1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the
person against whom a reasonable complaint has been
made, or credible information has been received, or a
reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a
cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other
place as may be specified in the notice.
(2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall
be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of
the notice.
(3) Where such person complies and continues to comply
with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the
offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be
recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought
to be arrested.
(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with
the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself,
the police officer may, subject to such orders as may
have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf,
arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.”
Section 91 of CrPC reads as under:-
“91. Summons to produce document or other
thing.–(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge
of a police station considers that the production of any
112025:CHC-AS:1425
document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the
purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other
proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or
officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer
a written order, to the person in whose possession or
power such document or thing is believed to be,
requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it,
at the time and place stated in the summons or order.(2) Any person required under this section merely to
produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to
have complied with the requisition if he causes such
document or thing to be produced instead of attending
personally to produce the same.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed–
(a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers’ Books Evidence
Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or
(b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other
document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the
postal or telegraph authority.”
7. The petitioner was well aware that he had been arraigned as
an accused. Thus, he approached before this Hon’ble Court and filed
an anticipatory bail application. However, the same was rejected on
merit after hearing the parties and after going through the Case
Diary.
12
2025:CHC-AS:1425
8. The impugned order of rejection of his anticipatory bail was
challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave
Petition being No. 4796/2023. However, the same was dismissed vide
order dated 20.09.2023 and affirmed the rejection order passed by
the Hon’ble High Court.
9. It further reveals from the order of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that the petitioner was directed to join and cooperate with the
investigation and hand over the mobile phone having IMEI No.
863711050892210 and other bank related documents for the
purpose of investigation and the petitioner has duly complied with all
the notices issued by the Investigating Agency from time to time as
per requirement under the relevant Code of Criminal Procedure at
different stages.
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances and further
prima facie sufficient materials available in the Case Diary against the
present petitioner, this Court does not find any valid or cogent reason
to allow the prayer for quashing of the investigation against the
present petitioner.
11. Since, it is appearing that he is prima facie involved in the
alleged offences and investigation is in progress and at the verge of
13
2025:CHC-AS:1425
conclusion of investigation, this Court cannot interfere with the
investigation.
12. The judgment and order relied upon by the petitioner in the
case of Rahul Chanda passed in WPA No. 24148 of 2023 is not at all
applicable in the present case because in the said case, the Co-
Ordinate Bench of this Court found that a notice which was issued to
the petitioner purportedly one under Section 160 of the CrPC but
containing elements of Section 41 of the CrPC. Therefore, it was
directed to issue a fresh notice under Section 160 of the CrPC as, at
that point of time, he was not an accused. The facts of this present
case are totally different. Hence, this application has devoid of merit
and is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, CRR No. 4411 of 2023 is, thus, dismissed.
CRAN 2 of 2024 and CRAN 6 of 2025 are also, thus, disposed of.
14. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Court
below for information.
15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
16. Case Diary, if any, be returned to the learned counsel for the
State.
14
2025:CHC-AS:1425
17. Parties shall act on the server copies of this Judgment
uploaded on the website of this Court.
18. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied
for, is to be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all
legal formalities.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J)
P. Adak (P.A.)