Dismissed¶19

Minati Sen (Chakraborty) @ Rinku v. Minati Sen and Ors.

Calcutta HC21 May 2026CRR/58/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 107 CrPC; preventive proceeding; apprehension of breach of peace; bond to keep peace; Sub-Divisional Magistrate Jalpaiguri; Kotwali P.S. PR No. 2595 of 2023 dated 31.10.2023; NGR Case No. 1586 of 2023; non-disclosure of police report in revision petition; dismissal of criminal revision; liberty to pursue future steps; CRR 58 of 2024; Krishna Rao, J.; Minati Sen (Chakraborty) @ Rinku.

What did the court decide?

None; the revisional application was dismissed, with the rider that the order does not prevent the petitioner from taking appropriate steps in future against any order passed in the instant case by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. ¶19

Minati Sen (Chakraborty) @ Rinku Vs Minati Sen and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 07.12.2023 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiating Section 107 CrPC proceedings was passed 'without any reason', as alleged by the petitioner, and warranted revisional interference. +1 more

¶13

Ratio / Principle

This Court failed to appreciate how the petitioner, having not gone through the Kotwali P.S. PR No. 2595 of 2023 dated 31.10.2023, could contend that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiated the proceeding 'without any reason'; the challenge to the impugned order was accordingly untenable.

¶17

Key takeaways

The revisional application being CRR 58 of 2024 is dismissed.ratio¶19
The dismissal will not prevent the petitioner from taking appropriate steps in future if aggrieved by any order passed in the instant case by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRR 58 of 2024 (High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri; Krishna Rao, J.; order dated 21.05.2026): The petitioner challenged the order dated 07.12.2023 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalpaiguri in NGR Case No. 1586 of 2023, whereby, on receipt of Kotwali P.S. PR No. 2595 of 2023 dated 31.10.2023 and on prima facie satisfaction of an apprehension of breach of peace, proceedings were initiated under Section 107 CrPC directing the petitioner to appear on 21.12.2023 and show cause why a bond of Rs. 5000/- each should not be executed to keep the peace. Observing that the petitioner had neither disclosed nor gone through the said police report yet alleged that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had acted 'without any reason', the Court found the submission unappreciable and dismissed the revisional application, while preserving the petitioner's liberty to take appropriate steps in future against any further order passed in the case.

¶1

21.05.2026 SL No.20 Court No.5 S.Gayen

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

¶3

CRR 58 of 2024

¶4

In the matter of: Minati Sen (Chakraborty) @ Rinku

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

Mr. Jaydeep Kanta Bhowmik Mr. Sayantan Bhowmik Ms. Jasmin Haque Ms. Priti Das

¶7

…for the Petitioner

¶8

Mr. HIllol Sara Podder

¶9

…for the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2

¶10

Mr. Nilay Chakraborty, Ld. APP (in-charge)

¶11

…for the State

¶12

The petitioner has filed the present revisional application challenging the impugned order dated 07.12.2023 in NGR Case No. 1586 of 2023 pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has issued the impugned order dated 07.12.2023 without any reason.

¶14

This Court finds that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order wherein the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on receipt of the Kotwali P.S. vide PR No. 2595 of 2023 dated 31.10.2023 has prima facie satisfied that there is an apprehension of breech of peace over the issue and accordingly by invoking the provision under Section 107 of the CrPC directed the petitioner to appear before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 21.12.2023 and to file show cause as to why they should not be directed to execute bond

¶15

¶16

of Rs. 5000/- each to keep peace in the locality. Though the petitioner has challenged the said impugned order but the petitioner has not disclosed the Kotwali P.S. vide PR No. 2595 of 2023 on the basis of which after being satisfied by the SubDivisional Magistrate has initiated the proceeding under Section 107 of the CrPC. Without going through the PR No. 2595 of 2023, the petitioner has filed the present revisional application challenging the impugned order on the allegation that the SubDivisional Magistrate without any reason has started the proceeding.

¶17

This Court failed to appreciate the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner has not gone through the Kotwali P.S. vide PR No. 2595 of 2023 dated 31.10.2023, how the petitioner came to know the Sub-Divisional Magistrate without any reason has initiated the proceeding.

¶18

In view of the above, the revisional application being CRR 58 of

¶19

2024 is dismissed .

¶20

However, this order will not prevent the petitioner for taking appropriate steps in future if the petitioner is aggrieved with any order, if any, passed in the instant case by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

¶21

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

¶22

Urgent Photostat certified copy, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all formalities.

¶23

(Krishna Rao, J.)

Minati Sen (Chakraborty) @ Rinku v. Minati Sen and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minati Sen (Chakraborty) @ Rinku v. Minati Sen 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

Rabindra Nath Ghosh and Anr. Vs Sanjay Sarkar

Bulbuli Nechha Vs Chola Ms General Insurance Company Limited and Anr.

Mou Sarkar Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Kanu Roy @ Kanu Barman and Ors.

Kanu Roy and Anr. Vs National General Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.

Ravinder Kumar Saraogi and Ors. Vs Jatiakali Enclave