Sonamoyi Barman Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sonamoyi Barman Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the revisional application was dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the trial Court at the time of filing of charge-sheet if aggrieved by the chargesheet.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 19.01.2026 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Dinhata, rejecting the defacto complainant's petition for addition of proper sections, proper investigation and police protection, suffers from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference in revision.

Court's answer

On hearing learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, this Court finds that prima facie there is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the nature of the prayer rejected by the trial Court, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the trial Court at the appropriate stage of investigation, that is, at the time of filing of charge-sheet, if aggrieved by the chargesheet submitted.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revisional application (CRR 75 of 2026) by the petitioner, the defacto complainant, challenging the order dated 19.01.2026 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Dinhata, Coochbehar, whereby her petition in G.R. Case No. 805 of 2025 (arising out of Sahebganj Police Station Case No. 710/25 dated 19.12.2025 under Sections 126(2), 117(2), 115(2), 351(3), 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) praying for addition of proper sections, proper investigation and police protection was rejected at a stage when investigation was in progress. Held: on hearing counsel for both sides and the materials on record, prima facie there is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order; considering the nature of the prayer rejected, the petitioner remains at liberty to approach the trial Court at the appropriate stage, i.e., at the time of filing of the charge-sheet, if aggrieved thereby. Revisional application dismissed; connected applications disposed of.

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

09.06.2026 Court No.5 Item No.43 Aloke

CRR 75 of 2026

Sonamoyi Barman Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

… for the petitioner

Mr. Avrojyoti Das, ld. APP Ms. Rajayashree Ghosh … for the State

Affidavit-of-service filed be kept with the record.

The present revisional application has been preferred praying for setting aside of an order dated 19.01.2026, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2^nd Court, Dinhata, Coochbehar, in connection with G.R. Case No. 805 of 2025, arising out of Sahebganj Police Station Case No. 710/25 dated 19.12.2025 under Sections 126(2), 117(2), 115(2), 351(3), 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner.

Vide the impugned order, the learned ACJM, 2^nd Court, Dinhata, held as follows :

“The petition filed by the defacto complainant is taken up for hearing. Ld. APP, Ld. Advocate for the defacto complainant are present.

2

The contention of the instant petition dt. 19.01.2026 is that the defacto complainant prayed for adding proper section in the case. Xerox copy of some medical documents is filed.

Ld. Advocate for the defacto complainant submitted that the accused persons had beaten the son of the defacto complainant and damaged his eye. The defacto complainant prayed for proper investigation and adding proper section in the case. The de facto complainant filed an affidavit and in the affidavit she prayed for police protection and proper investigation. In the affidavit it is also stated that the accused no. 1 is Civic Volunteer and police added petty offence in the case.

Ld. APP prayed for necessary order. Heard. Considered. Perused the record.

It appears that the FIR was lodged on 19.12.2025 and investigation is in progress. At this stage it cannot be ascertained that the police did not investigate properly or did not add proper section in the case. The defacto complainant could not show any proof at this stage to grant protection to her or her family.

Therefore, the instant petition is rejected at this stage .”

On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State and the materials on record, this Court finds that prima facie there is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

Considering the nature of prayer which has been rejected by the trial Court, the petitioner is always at liberty to approach the trial Court at the appropriate stage of investigation, that is at the time of filing of charge-sheet in

3

case the petitioner/complainant is aggrieved by the chargesheet submitted.

Considering the said facts, the revisional application stands dismissed.

Connected application, if any, stands disposed of.

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

(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)