Arup Mondal's Petition to Quash Proceedings Dismissed; Court Emphasizes the Importance of Comprehensive Investigation
The Calcutta High Court, in a significant decision dated February 4, 2026, dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by Arup Mondal seeking to quash proceedings in connection with a case of alleged bitcoin trading fraud. The judgment, delivered by Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, reinforces the discretionary powers of Magistrates to order further investigations even after the submission of a final report, emphasizing the pursuit of substantial justice.
Arup Mondal, the petitioner, was implicated in a case initiated by Shankar Aditya, who alleged that he was induced to invest Rs. 85.80 lakhs in bitcoin trading under the false promise of high returns. The funds, transferred online to Yotemo currency Services Company, were allegedly misappropriated, prompting Aditya to file a complaint with the Patuli Police Station on November 22, 2024.
During the proceedings, Mondal argued through his Senior Advocate, Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, that the case was baseless and sought quashing on grounds of wrongful implication. Despite not being named in the FIR, Mondal expressed apprehension of unjust summons and involvement in the ongoing investigation.
The court, however, found merit in the prosecution's stance, which highlighted the necessity of further investigation to trace the flow of misappropriated funds and identify the culprits. The police had initially submitted a Final Report (FRT) due to lack of evidence but later sought permission for further investigation, which the Magistrate allowed.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das cited several Supreme Court judgments, including the landmark Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali case, affirming the Magistrate's authority to supervise investigations and order further inquiries to ensure fair and just proceedings. The judgment clarified that such powers continue until the trial commences, allowing for the collection of new evidence that could strengthen the case.
The court dismissed Mondal's petition, underscoring that mere apprehension cannot justify quashing proceedings, especially in cases involving substantial financial allegations. The judgment emphasized that the investigation is crucial for discovering the truth and serving the interests of justice.
The decision is expected to set a precedent in handling cases involving complex financial transactions and fraud, highlighting the judiciary's role in ensuring thorough investigations before reaching a conclusion.
Bottom Line:
Power of Magistrate to order further investigation after submission of final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.PC continues until the trial commences. Magistrate's discretion to order further investigation must be exercised in accordance with law and to serve the interests of justice.
Statutory provision(s):
- Section 173(8), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Sections 318(4)/61(2), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Arup Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2849248
