Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2035
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Tirthankar Ghosh, J
Subhojit Roy – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
W.P.A. 14367 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Aranya Saha, Mr. Sankhasuvra Roy
For the Respondents: Mr. Siddhartha Sarkar, Mr. Suman Ghosh, Mr. Kanak Kiran Bandyopadhyay
The court enforced police obligations to inform complainants about investigation progress under the BNSS, 2023, enhancing accountability.
Headnote:The court addressed a petition concerning the alleged inaction of police in the registration of cases under the Arms Act. The petitioner claimed no effective steps had been taken despite registration of cases. The court found that provisions of the Arms Act were eventually incorporated after state submission of a report. The court emphasized the necessity for police to communicate progress to the defacto complainant per the relevant law and made observations for future compliance. The petitioner was advised on seeking recourse for complaints against further inaction. As a result, the petition was disposed of.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that in spite of receipt of the information and registering cases being Habra PS Case No. 81/2025 dated 22.02.2025 and Habra PS Case No. 269/2025 dated 07.07.2025, no effective steps have been taken by the police authorities.
Petitioner’s grievance is that in spite of informing that the accused persons are involved in connection with offences under the Arms Act, the provisions have not been incorporated.
Be that as it may, State has submitted a report. Report reflects that in the latter case provisions of the Arms Act have been incorporated.
In view of the present provisions of the BNSS , 2023 so far as the case is concerned, more than 3 months have passed. Accordingly, after 90 days the progress of the investigation is to be informed to the defacto complainant. Police authorities would ensure that such a progress report regarding the steps taken be handed over to the defacto complainant. In case such a progress report is not submitted the defacto complainant would file an application before the jurisdictional court. The jurisdictional court would pass necessary orders adhering to the provisions of law.
Learned advocate for the respondent nos.
11 to 13 submits that so far as the case is concerned, they have already appeared before the Court and have been released on bail.
Having regard to the steps taken by the police authorities and the plight expressed by the petitioner, I am of the view that since the second case has already been registered, the agony of the petitioner has been addressed. However, the petitioner’s allegation so far as the withdrawal of the case is concerned if such an event is repeated petitioner will take out appropriate application before the jurisdictional court which would then direct the Superior Officer to conduct an enquiry.
With the aforesaid observations WPA 14367 of 2025 is disposed of.
