Disposed¶16

Sujit Mukherjee v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC7 Feb 2025WPA/2234/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory-relief writ petition (W.P.A. 2234 of 2025) by Sujit Mukherjee fearing false implication by the Inspectors-in-Charge of Berhampore and Beldanga Police Stations; disposed of 07.02.2025 by Tirthankar Ghosh, J.; no interference, petition founded on hearsay without documentary support; liberty to approach Judicial Magistrate under S.175(4) BNSS or S.223 BNSS; State report on threatening calls from unknown mobile number.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate under section 175(4) of the BNSS or under section 223 of the BNSS if the situation so demands. ¶16

Sujit Mukherjee Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

D/L 34 07.02.2025 Kausik ct.no.35

¶2

W.P.A. 2234 of 2025

¶3

Sujit Mukherjee Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Habibur Rahaman Mr. Archisman Singh Mr. Nurul Amin Sardar Mr. Sumit Naskar

¶5

Mr. Mainak Gupta

¶6

…for the respondent no. 11. (private respondent)

¶7

Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata Mr. Ziaul Haque

¶8

Affidavit of service so filed be kept with the

¶9

record.

¶10

Petitioner claims that he has been informing the police authorities regarding illegal acts and had been raising his voice for which earlier he had been foisted with number of false criminal cases, presently he apprehends that he may be implicated in further false cases by the Inspector-in-Charge, Berhampore Police Station and the Inspector-in-Charge of Beldanga Police Station.

¶11

Petitioner complains that he has heard regarding the same. The enclosures to the writ

¶12

¶13

petition reflects that the petitioner from the year 2011 till date has been complaining relating to the illegal acts and as such has faced hurdles in life.

¶14

State has submitted a report. Report reflects that police authorities on receipt of the information is working in respect of the unknown mobile number from where the petitioner received threats.

¶15

Since the writ petition is based on hearsay materials without any documentary support and the petitioner only apprehends that he may be foisted with false criminal cases, I am of the view that at this stage there is no scope for interference in respect of the prayers advanced in the writ petition. However, if situation so demand petitioner would be at liberty to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate under section 175(4) of the BNSS or under section 223 of the BNSS.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations WPA 2234 of 2025 is disposed of.

¶17

Report so submitted be kept with the record.

¶18

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶19

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Sujit Mukherjee v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujit Mukherjee v. the 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

Sultan Sanpui Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Abbasuddin Sardar Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sudipta Sarkar and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Aswini Kumar Panda Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Jay Prakash Gupta and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Molla Nijamuddin and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.