IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

And

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

MAT/675/2025

ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR

VS.

SUCHARITA DAS AND ORS.

IA NO: CAN/1/2025

With

MAT/692/2025

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (ADMINISTRATION), PASCHIM MEDINIPUR

VS.

SUSHRITA SAREN AND ORS

IA NO: CAN/1/2025

For the Appellants :Mr. Swapan Banerjee, AGP

Ms. Sumita Shaw, Advocate

Mr. Soumen Chatterjee, Advocate

For the Respondents :Mr. Samim Ahammed, Advocate

in MAT/675/2025 Ms. Ambiya Khatun, Advocate

Mr. Arka Ranjan Bhattacharya, Advocate

Md. Nasirul Haque, Advocate

For the respondents : Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate

in MAT/692/2025 Mr. Sirshendu Sinha Roy, Advocate

Mr. Kartick Kumar Roy, Advocate

Mr. Supreem Naskar, Advocate Ms. Jayashree Patra, Advocate

Heard on: July 31, 2025 & August 20, 2025 Judgment on : August 20, 2025 Debangsu Basak, J.

1. Two appeals are taken up for analogous consideration as similar issues are involved.

2. MAT/675/2025 is directed against order dated April 22, 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPA 5447 of 2025. MAT/692/2025 is directed against the order dated April 22, 2025 passed in WPA 5591 of

2025.

3. Ms. Sumitra Show, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, the appellants are aggrieved by a portion of the two impugned orders. She submits that by the impugned order, learned Single Judge constituted a Special Investigating Team to investigate the two complaints lodged by the two private respondents in the two writ petitions. At the same time, learned Single Judge, directed the Human Rights Court to decide on the issue. She submits that, the appellants will be seriously prejudiced in the event, two proceedings are carried on simultaneously.

4. Ms. Sumitra Show contends that, there may arise a situation where the Human Rights Court may dispose of the proceedings prior to SIT submitting its final report before the trial Court. The Human Rights Court may find the appellants guilty while, the SIT may return a mistake as to guilt in the final report before the trial Court. In such a scenario, therefore, the appellants will be seriously prejudiced.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submit that, the appellant in MAT/675/2025 is an accused in respect of the complaint lodged by the private respondent in such appeal. Learned Single Judge directed the complaint of the private respondent in MAT/675/2025 to be treated as a first information report. They draw the attention of the Court to the order dated April 22, 2025 passed in WPA 5447 of 2025 and to the complaint dated March 4, 2025 lodged by the private respondent. They submit that, since the appellant in MAT/675/2025 is an accused in one of the criminal proceedings, he should not be allowed to prefer the appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submit that, there is no question of two fora arriving at two different findings. Human Rights Court is concerned with the violation of human rights while the criminal liability, if any, with regard to the incident is to be assessed and considered by the criminal Court.

7. We find from the records that, two complaints were lodged by the two private respondents with the police in relation to alleged over-action by the police and custodial torture.

8. By the two impugned orders, learned Single Judge, directed constitution of a Special Investigating Team to investigate into such allegation. Learned Single Judge also noticed an authority of the Supreme Court reported in (2021) 1 SCC 184 [Paramvir Singh Saini v.- Baljit Singh] and directed that, in the event there is human rights violation, the same is to be considered and decided upon by the Human Rights Court.

9. Since there are allegations of custodial torture by the police, we find no infirmity in the learned Single Judge directing investigation to be undertaken by a Special Investigating Team. A Constitutional Court c