Sanjoy Ghosh and Others Vs State of West Bengal — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sanjoy Ghosh and Others Vs State of West Bengal — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the revision application was dismissed as infructuous. Ancillary direction: the learned trial Court was directed to pass appropriate directions in accordance with law as the petitioner had not received the copy of the Questioned Document Examination Bureau report.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's revisional application challenging the learned Magistrate's order dated August 9, 2023 allowing further investigation in G.R. Case No. 1490 of 2022 remains tenable after conclusion of further investigation and submission of the supplementary charge-sheet.

Court's answer

With further investigation concluded and the supplementary charge-sheet submitted, no ground remained in the original challenge to the order allowing further investigation; the proceeding became infructuous in the eye of law.

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner had not received the copy of the Questioned Document Examination Bureau report (ordered March 19, 2025, submission due April 30, 2025), the learned trial Court was directed to pass appropriate directions in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

There being no reason to allow the revisional application to be continued further, the revision application is dismissed as infructuous.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (CRR 4377 of 2023, Sanjoy Ghosh & Ors.) challenging the learned Magistrate's order dated August 9, 2023 allowing further investigation in G.R. Case No. 1490 of 2022: following interim orders of co-ordinate Benches (November 29, 2023 - investigation to continue but the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure not to be accepted; March 19, 2025 - signatures to be examined by the Questioned Document Examination Bureau, West Bengal, report due by April 30, 2025), further investigation concluded and a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted, but cognizance was withheld by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalna, Purba Bardhaman pending this revision. As no ground remained in the original challenge, the proceeding was declared infructuous and the revision application was dismissed as infructuous; the trial Court was directed to pass appropriate directions in respect of the pending Questioned Document Examination Bureau report, a copy whereof the petitioner had not received.

10.02.2026 Item No.1 Ct. No. 34 nb

CRR 4377 of 2023

In the matter of: Sanjoy Ghosh & Ors.

Mr. Ritzu Ghosal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhra Jana, Mr. Anirban Ghosh, .…For the Petitioners.

Mr. Sakti Kumar Chatterjee, Ms. Sananda Bhattacharyya, …… for the respondent.

This matter has come up at the instance of the opposite parties that pursuance to the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on November 29, 2023, investigation was allowed to be continued, however, the learned Court was restrained from accepting the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This proceeding was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the learned Magistrate allowing further investigation pertaining to G.R. Case No.1490 of 2022 dated August 9, 2023.

It is gathered from the submission of both the learned counsels that further investigation has been concluded and the supplementary charge-sheet has been submitted. However, the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalna,

2

Purba Bardhaman refused to take the cognizance in view of the pendency of this revisional application before this Court.

It is pertinent to mention herein that vide order dated March 19, 2025, co-ordinate Bench also directed the Investigation Authority to collect signature before Questioned Document Examination Bureau, West Bengal and also directed to submit a repot after examining within April 30, 2025. The petitioner has not received the copy of the said report as of now hence the learned Court is directed to pass appropriate direction in accordance with law.

In view of the subsequent development, as discussed above whereby the supplementary charge-sheet has been submitted, this Court of the view that there remains no ground in the petition filed by the petitioner which was initially filed challenging the order allowing the further investigation.

Hence this proceeding becomes infructuous in the eye of law.

Hence, there is no reason to allow this revisional application to be continued further.

Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed as infructuous.

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

(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)

3