Allowed¶28

Vikash Kumar Jain v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC2 Sept 2025CRR/171/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRR 171 of 2025; Vikash Kumar Jain; BNSS 2023; Section 173(3); Sections 173(4) read with Section 175(3); preliminary enquiry / preliminary report; application of mind by Magistrate; territorial jurisdiction; Hare Street Police Station; Boubazar Police Station; complaint to be treated as F.I.R; extortion, vandalism allegations; Mission Café; Chief Judicial Magistrate Calcutta; Complaint Case no. 163 of 2024; order dated 29.11.2024 set aside; rehearing afresh; non-cognizable offence; revision allowed.

What did the court decide?

Revisional application allowed; impugned order dated 29th November, 2024 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta set aside, with direction to the learned Magistrate to re-hear the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties. ¶28

Vikash Kumar Jain Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 29th November, 2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta in Complaint Case no. 163 of 2024 should be set aside. +2 more

¶11

Court's answer

The matter needs to be heard afresh by the learned Magistrate within the parameters envisaged in the BNSS.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Before exercising jurisdiction under Section 173(3) BNSS, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, and that application of mind must be reflected in the order.

¶23

Key takeaways

In the present case no such application of mind is reflected in the impugned order; it merely reiterates the version of the preliminary enquiry report.ratio¶23
Given the possibility of two places of occurrence (the concerned office apparently within Hare Street Police Station jurisdiction per the complaint, versus Boubazar Police Station per the preliminary report), the learned Court ought to have expressed a detailed discussion before accepting the preliminary report.ratio¶23
Certain allegations said to have occurred were not dealt with in the impugned order, and those allegations also touch the question of the police station's jurisdiction.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (CRR 171 of 2025) — Vikash Kumar Jain: Order dated 29th November, 2024 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta in Complaint Case no. 163 of 2024 — an application under Sections 173(4) read with Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking direction to treat the complaint as an F.I.R at Hare Street Police Station against opposite party nos. 2 and 3 — set aside. Held: under Section 173(3) BNSS the Magistrate must apply his mind and reflect it in the order before accepting a preliminary enquiry report; the impugned order merely reiterated the preliminary enquiry report. With two possible places of occurrence (concerned office apparently within Hare Street P.S. jurisdiction per the complaint; Boubazar P.S. per the preliminary report), a detailed discussion was required, and certain allegations bearing on police-station jurisdiction were left undealt with. Matter directed to be heard afresh with opportunity of hearing to both parties; revision allowed.

¶1

02.09.2025 (D/L 05) Ct.-446 ( Susanta/ Samar)

¶2

CRR 171 of 2025

¶3

In Re: Vikash Kumar Jain.

¶4

….Petitioner.

¶5

Mr. Avik Ghatak,

¶6

Mr. Fahad Imam, Mr. Sagnik Mukherjee,

¶7

…. For the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Sudipta Kumar Das, Mr. Soumya Chatterjee, Mr. Kaushik Mukherjee,

¶9

…. For the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3.

¶10

1. Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner is kept with the record.

¶11

This revisional application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 29^th November, 2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta in connection with the Complaint Case no. 163 of 2024 being an application under Sections 173(4) read with Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶12

It is the case of the petitioner that one complaint was lodged under Section 173(4) read with Section 175(3) of the BNSS before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta seeking direction for sending the petitioner to the Officer-in-charge, Hare Street Police Station, with a direction to treat the same as an F.I.R and initiate a case against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

¶13

¶14

The said application was numbered as complaint case no. 163 of 2024.

¶15

It is submitted by the learned advocate representing the petitioner that the allegations leveled in the petition of complaint pertains to the cognizable offence and the said incident happened which is mentioned at paragraph 7 of the said complaint clearly shows that the petitioner, the accused person attempted extortion, vandalise and ransacked his office which is not Mission Café as mentioned in the order dated 29^th November, 2024.

¶16

It is the contention of the learned advocate that the complaint very much comes within the territorial jurisdiction of Hare Street Police Station.

¶17

The petitioner further challenged that the preliminary report filed before the Magistrate which failed to consider the allegations leveled in the petition of complaint by the petitioner, accordingly prays for setting aside the said order.

¶18

The learned advocate representing the opposite party no. 2 submits that the entire complaint is alleged with false and fabricated story and the preliminary report was filed mentioning about non-cognizable offence. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Court is absolutely justified. 9. Furthermore, territorial jurisdiction cannot be created at the behest of the petitioner and to have taken place within the Hare Street Police Station, it was correctly observed by the learned Court in the order impugned and

¶19

¶20

accordingly prays for dismissal of this revisional application.

¶21

Having heard both the learned Counsel and careful perusal of the nature of the complaint lodged, this Court finds certain allegations as alleged to have happened were not dealt with which also touches the jurisdiction of the Police Station.

¶22

Since dispute arose at the place of occurrence which is stated to be at the concerned office apparently coming within the jurisdiction of the Hare Street Police Station and as per the preliminary report, the dispute arose at a place coming within the jurisdiction of Boubazar Police Station.

¶23

In view of the possibility of two place of occurrence, the learned Court brought to have express a detailed discussion for accepting the preliminary report. Section 173(3) of BNSS has given statutory recognition for conducting preliminary enquiry of cases punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but less than 7 years. The purpose of preliminary enquiry to determine it prima facie case exists for the above nature of offences. However, the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 173(3) is required to apply mind and that should be reflected in the order. In this case no such reflection can be found and the order only reiterates the version of the preliminary enquire report.

¶24

¶25

This Court is, therefore, of the view that the matter needs to

¶26

be heard afresh by the learned Magistrate within the parameters as envisaged in the BNSS.

¶27

Accordingly, in view of the above, the order passed by the learned Court dated 29^th November, 2024 is hereby set aside with a direction to the learned Magistrate to re-hear the matter afresh after giving the opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

¶28

In view of the above, the revisional application stands allowed.

¶29

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶30

(Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.)

Vikash Kumar Jain v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Kumar Jain v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

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

Ajay Bind and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal

Bappa Kshetrapal Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

M/S Dynamic International Vs Union of India and Ors.

Siddhartha Chakraborty and Others Vs Mistu Dubey Chakraborty

Ramaprasad Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Dipa Adhikary Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.