Disposed

Arpita Bairagya v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC23 Sept 2024WPA/20921/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition alleging police inaction, the court examined a police report confirming an FIR under the BNS was registered and steps were taken. The petition was disposed of with a direction to conclude the investigation expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed the concerned Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation expeditiously and take all consequential steps thereupon.

Arpita Bairagya Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2024)

¶1

23.09.2024 Sl. No. 55 g.b. Court No.07

¶2

W.P.A. 20921 of 2024

¶3

Arpita Bairagya -VsThe State of W. B. & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Jagriti Bhattacharya …..For the Petitioner Mr. Rajarshi Basu Mr. Ananda Dulal Sarkar …..For the State Mr. Abhishek Gupta Miss I. Roy ….For the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6

¶5

Affidavit of service filed in court today is taken on record.

¶6

The petitioner alleges that no steps have been taken by the police authorities pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner vide letter dated 26^th of July, 2024.

¶7

The learned advocate appearing for the State files a report of the Officer-in-charge, Memari Police Station dated 11^th September, 2024.

¶8

After going through the said report, this court finds that pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner Memari Police Station case no. 702 of 2024 dated 22.08.2024 under Section 318(4)/316(2) BNS has been registered. It has been further stated in the said report that notice under Section 35 BNSS has been issued to the FIR named accused persons but they did not appear before the Investigating Officer to face investigation. Thereafter another notice under Section 35 BNSS was issued on 29^th September, 2024 directing the FIR named accused persons to appear before the Investigating Officer.

¶9

The learned advocate for the private respondents submits that pursuant to the notice the FIR named

¶10

¶11

accused persons appeared before the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶12

In the event, the FIR named accused persons did not comply with the notices under Section 35 BNSS, it would be open to the Investigating Officer to take appropriate steps as per the relevant statute.

¶13

The report further states that the notice under Section 94 BNSS was issued to the complainant to produce documents in respect of stolen gold ornaments, silver ornaments etc. but she failed to produce any document and in this regard, she gave a written declaration also.

¶14

It appears that police has taken some steps pursuant to the registration of the FIR.

¶15

In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed of by directing the concerned Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation expeditiously and to take all consequential steps thereupon.

¶16

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties after completion of all necessary formalities.

¶19

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

Arpita Bairagya v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arpita Bairagya v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mira Mondal Vs Uttam Kumar Konai and Ors.

Jamaluddin Momin Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Udaykumar Chabidas Patel Vs Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr.

Haran Gazi and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Susmita Karmakar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Aktrarul Laskar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.