Mohammad Isha vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 78 Cal

7th January,
 2021
 (AK)
 51

                                 W.P.A 5256 of 2020

                                   Mohammad Isha
                                          Vs.
                             The State of West Bengal & Ors.


                           Mr. Manoj Kumar Roy
                                             ...For the Petitioner.

                           Mr. Y.J. Dastoor
                           Mr. Phiroze Edulji
                           Mr. Samrat Goswami
                                                          ...For CBI.
                           Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata
                           Mrs. Jhuma Chakraborty
                                                      ...For the State.


                    The petitioner alleges that the petitioner is a daily

               labour. The private respondents demolished the residence

of the petitioner on March 25, 2020, for which the

petitioner immediately lodged complaint with the police.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that no

FIR was registered on such complaint. Even if any FIR

was registered, no copy thereof was given forthwith, as

mandated under Section 154(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, to the petitioner.

Learned counsel argues that since the private

respondents have political affiliation and one of them is a

local MLA, the petitioner reasonably apprehends that the

delay in investigation regarding the petitioner's complaint

is deliberate and motivated.

Learned counsel relies on the judgment of Lalita

Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. reported at (2014) 2 SCC 1

with regard to the mandatory registration of FIR.

Learned counsel appearing for the State respondent

argues, by placing reliance upon a police report in the

form of instruction filed in court today, that the police

have taken sufficient action on the petitioner's complaint.

Not only was a First Information Report registered

under the relevant Sections, a notice under Section 41A

of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued to the

accused persons and a statement under Section 161 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure has already been taken.

Thereafter, it is submitted, the police authorities are

keeping a vigil and are proceeding with the investigation.

However, learned counsel for the State respondents

submits that the petitioner is not cooperating with the

investigation, despite several attempts to issue notice

under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for

the petitioner complainant to provide evidence in support

of his allegations.

It appears from the materials-on-record that the

police authorities are already investigating into the

matter, upon registering a First Information Report and

have taken due steps with regard to such investigation.

However, the delay in completion of the investigation

might justify an apprehension in the mind of the

petitioner, since the private respondents are politically

affiliated.

However, mere apprehension, at this juncture, is not

sufficient to prejudge the intentions of the police before a

charge sheet is filed in the matter.

That apart, in the event the charge sheet, when

filed, is not satisfactory or in accordance with law, the

petitioner always has the option to approach the

concerned Magistrate in that regard.

Yet, keeping in mind the obvious inequality in social

status between the petitioner, who is a daily labour, and

the private respondents, who are allegedly politically

affiliated, the Superintendent of Police ought to keep a

tab on the matter.

Accordingly, WPA 5256 of 2020 is disposed of by

directing the petitioner to cooperate with the police

authorities in the matter of investigation regarding his

complaint.

Respondent no.3, the Superintendent of Police,

Singur (Rural), Kamarkndu shall keep an eye on the

investigation with regard to the complaint of the

petitioner to ensure that the same is done expeditiously

and impartially.

It is made clear that no aspersion is recorded in this

order with regard to the intentions of the local police. In

the event the petitioner is convinced that the investigation

is not going on impartially and in accordance with law,

the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the

competent magistrate and/or the concerned

Superintendent of Police.

If such an approach is made, the concerned

Magistrate/Superintendent of Police shall look into the

allegations of the petitioner without being prejudiced by

any of the observations made herein.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied for,

be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite

formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)