Disposed¶13

Sasthi Sankar Maity v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC5 Feb 2024CRR/341/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRR 341 of 2024; Sasthi Sankar Maity v. The State of West Bengal and Anr.; High Court at Calcutta; Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction; decided 05-02-2024; Tirthankar Ghosh, J.; Kharagpur Town Police Station Case No. 433 of 2023 (15-09-2023); order dated 11-01-2024 challenged; bail application; BL & LRO (one block) enquiry; conversion of water body/land; Section 4D WBLR Act; investigation in progress; no interference; disposed of; liberty to approach court afresh.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the revisional application is disposed of without interference, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the court again if the situation so demands. ¶13

Sasthi Sankar Maity Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the revisional application is disposed of without interference, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the court again if the situation so demands.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the court should intervene at this stage in respect of the order dated 11-01-2024 challenged by the petitioner, while the investigation and the BL & LRO enquiry are in progress. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

A complainant apprehensive regarding the outcome of such an enquiry has to deal with it in an appropriate application before a court having jurisdiction.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The court finds no merit in interfering at this stage with the application challenging the order dated 11-01-2024; the investigation as directed would continue, and the revisional application is disposed of.

¶12

Key takeaways

The court is not presently in a position to assess whether the outcome of the enquiry would have an adverse effect on the complainant himself, and accordingly leaves the matter open.ratio¶12
In an investigation under the relevant provisions of Section 4D of the WBLR Act, it is the duty of the court to check regarding the issues relating to whether any water body or any land of such nature and character are being converted.obiter¶10
If the situation so demands, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this court afresh.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta, Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction (CRR 341 of 2024, decided 05-02-2024, Tirthankar Ghosh, J): Sasthi Sankar Maity, complainant in whose complaint Kharagpur Town Police Station Case No. 433 of 2023 (dated 15-09-2023) was registered, challenged the order dated 11-01-2024 passed while an application for bail was being considered, wherein the Learned Magistrate directed BL & LRO (one block) to enquire whether the complainant had effected any conversion. Finding the investigation (under the relevant provisions of Section 4D, WBLR Act) still in progress, the court declined to interfere at this stage, disposed of the revisional application, held that any apprehension about the enquiry's outcome must be raised in an appropriate application before a court having jurisdiction, and reserved to the petitioner liberty to approach the court again if the situation so demands.

¶1

05-02-2024

¶2

Subha Item no. 68 Ct no.34

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction

¶4

CRR 341 of 2024

¶5

Sasthi Sankar Maity -versus- The State of West Bengal and Anr.

¶6

Mr. Shambhu Nath Ray Ms. Sharmistha Roychowdhury Ms. Amrita Tewari Ms. Tuhina Parven

¶7

Ms. Sonia Das

¶8

….for the petitioner.

¶9

Learned advocate for the petitioner in fact has challenged the order dated 11-01-2024. The petitioner is the complainant pursuant to whose complaint Kharagpur Town Police Station Case No. 433 of 2023 dated 15-09-2023 was registered for investigation. Learned Magistrate while considering the application for bail has directed regarding BL & LRO (one block) to conduct an enquiry regarding the factum whether the complainant has made any conversion.

¶10

It has been submitted that in the meantime inspection has been conducted. I find that the investigation of the aforesaid case is in progress. In an investigation under the relevant provisions of Section 4D of the WBLR Act it is the duty of the court to check regarding the issues relating to whether any water body or any land of such nature and character are being converted. Now if the complainant/petitioner is apprehensive regarding the outcome of such an enquiry he has to deal with it in an appropriate application

¶11

¶12

before a court having jurisdiction. This court is not in a position right now to assess as to whether the outcome of the enquiry would have an adverse effect on the complainant itself. The investigation as directed would continue. So far as the application of the petitioner is concerned, I do not find any merit to interfere at this stage. If situation so demands petitioner would be at liberty to approach this court.

¶13

With the aforesaid observation, the revisional application being CRR 341 of 2024 is disposed of.

¶14

Pending applications, if any, are consequently disposed of. All concerned parties are to act in terms of a copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court.

¶15

[Tirthankar Ghosh, J]

Sasthi Sankar Maity v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasthi Sankar Maity v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bimal Kumar Nopany Vs Akhil Chandra Moitra & Anr.

M/S Ashok Optics Rept by Its Partnerahtasha Mul Haque Vs Amiya Chorone Roquitte Also Khown as Amiya Charan Rakshit

Samiul Sk. Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Show & Ors. Vs Gopal Chandra Karmakar

Surya Kanta Giri Vs Bijoy Kumar Bera

Parimal Halder Vs Kartick Halder & Ors.