Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Agarpara Jute Mills Limited & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 October, 2024
Author: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
Bench: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
17
jks
07.10.2024
WPA 19889 of 2024
With
CAN 8 of 2024
With
CAN 9 of 2024
With
CAN 10 of 2024
Agarpara Jute Mills Limited & Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Abhrotosh Mazumdar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sourav Chatterjee
Mr. Aditya Kanodia
Ms. Pramiti Bandyopadhyay
Ms. Suparna Sardar
... ... for the petitioners
Mr. Samrat Sen, AAAG
Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, AGP
Mr. Wasim Ahmed
Mr. Debraj Sahu
... ... for the State
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arindam Banerjee
Mr. S. Mukherjee
Mr. D.K. Sarkar
Ms. D. Priya
Mr. B. Kumar
Mr. I. Basu
... ... for the respondent no.6
Mr. Promit Roy, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury
Mr. J. Ghorai
Mr. D. Ghorai
Mr. P. Garain
Mr. D. Dasgupta
Mr. Varun Kothari
Mr. A. Agarwalla
Mr. B. N. Joshi
Ms. D. Mukherjee
Ms. Atmaja Bandyopadhyay
...for the respondent no. 7
Mr. Saptangsu Basu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arik Banerjee
Mr. B.K. Jain
Mr. P. Jain
... ... for the added respondent no. 11
Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rahul Kumar Sing
... ... for the added respondent no.13
Mr. Abhishek Halder
Mr. Swadesh Misra
... ... for the added respondent no.14
I. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the present writ petition raises a significant issue of
pathetic economic extortion by the state from the
enterprises and industrialists for the consideration
of this Hon'ble Court. The primary question
pertains to whether, under the given facts and
circumstances, the police authorities were justified
in facilitating the commission of cognizable
offences, such as illegal trespass and theft, by
allowing certain perpetrators to unlawfully enter
the factory premises owned and possessed by
petitioner No. 1 with more than 3000 workers at
the instigation of the private respondent no. 6. This
act of facilitation by the police raises serious
concerns about the breach of law and order, and
the propriety of such police actions requires
judicial scrutiny.
2. In support of the petitioners' case, reference is
made to a Scheme of Arrangement sanctioned by
the Company Court on January 17, 1986, which is
essential to the matter at hand. This Scheme of
Arrangement, approved by the Company Court,
specifically provided for the transfer of the jute
business of Respondent No. 7 (Agarpara Company
Limited) to the petitioner no. 1. Pursuant to Clause
1(i) of Part-II of the Scheme, all properties, rights,
and powers of Respondent No. 7, except those
enumerated in Schedule "A" to the Scheme, were
transferred to the petitioner no. 1 without any
further act or deed, in accordance with Section
394(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. The transfer
included the vested interest in properties and
assets, barring specific exclusions listed in
Schedule "A," such as the Fire Brigade Ground at
Mouza Agarpara, Panihati Municipality.
3. The learned counsel also draws attention to the
various statutory licenses and documents including
the payment to provident fund of the employees for
last twenty years held by the petitioner no.1, which
affirm their lawful possession of the factory
premises. These documents include electricity bills,
the Certificate of Enlistment for conducting
business at the factory premises located at 28 B.T.
Road, GST registration records, and a fire safety
license renewal application. Other pertinent
records include the factory's municipal assessment,
jute importer registration, factory license, and
certificates of appreciation from the Ministry of
Finance. All these documents underscore the
petitioners' rightful ownership and operation of the
jute mill at the designated premises.
4. Further, the petitioners have been embroiled in
multiple legal proceedings initiated by Respondent
No. 7 or its affiliates, aimed at undermining the
petitioners' lawful rights. In one such instance, the
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissed
a petition filed by Respondent No. 7, which sought
to assert ownership claims over the jute mill, and
this decision was upheld by the National Company
Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and the Supreme
Court. Additionally, the learned counsel highlights
discrepancies and misdescriptions in various
documents, such as the Revenue Sharing
Agreement (RSA) and the police complaints filed by
Respondent No. 6. These documents incorrectly
describe the location of the factory premises,
leading to confusion and deliberate attempts to
mislead the authorities.
5. The petitioners further allege that the police
authorities have acted in collusion with the private
respondent No. 6, facilitating illegal activities at the
factory premises. On the evening of August 3,
2024, a large group of anti-social elements
gathered outside the jute mill, intending to forcibly
enter the premises. Despite repeated calls by one of
the petitioner no.1's directors, one Mr. Shyam
Sundar Binani, to the police, the authorities failed
to take appropriate action. Instead, the police,
accompanied by the Rapid Action Force (RAF),
arrived at the scene and actively facilitated the
unlawful entry of the miscreants into the factory.
The situation escalated when, under police
supervision, finished goods and raw materials were
stolen from the premises, and the factory's name
was defaced, replacing it with the name of
Respondent No. 6, Regent Vinimay Private Limited.
6. The petitioners also point to inconsistencies in the
police reports, questioning the deployment of the
RAF without proper authorization and the failure to
produce video recordings despite orders from the
Court. The counsel for the petitioner contends that
the police authorities, far from upholding the rule
of law, actively participated in the illegalities, as
evidenced by the failure to disclose crucial
documents and the contradictory statements made
in various police reports. These lapses on the part
of the police, coupled with the deliberate
obfuscation of facts, have exacerbated the
petitioner's grievances and necessitated the
intervention of this Hon'ble Court.
7. In light of these egregious actions and the
abrogation of the rule of law by the police
authorities, the petitioner prays for appropriate
relief from this Hon'ble Court, including an inquiry
into the illegal actions of the police and restitution
of the petitioner's rights over the factory premises.
The learned counsel submits that the Court's
intervention is essential to uphold justice and
prevent further illegalities from being committed
under the guise of law enforcement.
8. In furtherance of the petitioners' submissions, it is
essential to examine the procedural and legal
framework governing the deployment of the Rapid
Action Force (RAF), as well as its improper
application in the present matter. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the
deployment of RAF in the case at hand was
unwarranted and not in line with the stipulated
guidelines under relevant police orders.
9. As per Paragraph 3(a) of Police Order No. 01 of
2018 and Paragraph 5(a) of Police Order No. 03 of
1999, the primary objective of deploying the RAF is
to manage large-scale outbreaks of communal and
other violence or unprecedented law and order
situations, including communal unrest.
Additionally, the RAF is entrusted with providing
rescue and relief operations to victims of such
violence to restore normalcy in affected areas. The
petitioners assert that in the current scenario at
Agarpara Jute Mill Limited (AJML), no such large-
scale communal or law-and-order disturbance
occurred that would justify the need for RAF
intervention. There were no instances of communal
violence or unrest requiring specialized deployment
of this force.
10. Further, Paragraph 10(b) of Police Order No. 03 of
1999 explicitly states that the RAF is a specialized
force raised for specific purposes and is not to be
detailed for routine guard duties or patrolling. RAF
units are equipped to handle unique hazards and
adversities within society and are characterized by
their rapid response, special equipment, peak
physical condition, and high operational efficiency,
as outlined in Paragraph 6 of the same order.
However, the petitioners emphasize that no such
extraordinary situation existed at Agarpara Jute
Mills Limited herein the petitioner no.1 to warrant
RAF deployment, and the force's presence was
instead used to achieve the unlawful objectives of
Respondent No. 6. The photographs and videos
from the premises do not depict any circumstances
justifying such extreme measures, thus raising
concerns about the real motives behind the
deployment.
11. As per the procedural aspect of RAF deployment,
Paragraph 10(b) of Police Order No. 03 of 1999
stipulates that, upon arrival in a district, the RAF
contingent must report to the Superintendent of
Police (SP), Additional SP, or Sub-Divisional Police
Officer (SDPO) and act under their operational
control. However, administrative control remains
with the Commandant of RAF. This structure
mandates that a written requisition and adequate
documentation must be submitted by the district
police to call for RAF services. The district police
are required to form a written opinion that
circumstances exist as per Paragraph 3(a) of Police
Order No. 01 of 2018 and Paragraph 5(a) of Police
Order No. 03 of 1999, thereby justifying the
deployment. This is to be followed by a Command
Order issued by the RAF Commandant based on
the district police's request and the urgency of the
situation.
12. In the present case, no such written requisition or
Command Order appears to have been made,
raising serious concerns about the legitimacy of the
RAF's presence at AJML. The lack of proper
documentation underscores the arbitrary nature of
the deployment and suggests that the police
authorities have acted outside their legal mandate.
It is a sine qua non that written authorization must
be obtained to seek RAF intervention, and without
this, the deployment is legally flawed.
13. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the operational control vested in
superior police officers under Paragraph 5 of Police
Order No. 03 of 1999 must be exercised strictly in
accordance with the specific conditions laid out. In
the absence of a legitimate basis as outlined in
Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said police orders, the
decision to deploy RAF cannot stand. The
petitioners assert that the conditions precedent for
deploying RAF were not met in this instance, and
any exercise of power to deploy the force in these
circumstances constitutes an abuse of authority.
Moreover, the Command Order for such
deployment must be in writing to prevent any
misuse or arbitrary application of police powers.
Accordingly, the learned counsel prays that the
improper deployment of RAF be examined by this
Hon'ble Court, and appropriate action be taken to
address the misuse of law enforcement resources.
14. The scope of the instant writ petition, as reflected
in the prayers, demonstrates that the petitioners,
despite alleging that police personnel aided and
abetted the illegal trespass and forcible entry of
outsiders into the jute mill, has primarily sought
police protection. The petitioners have consistently
requested that the police fulfil their duty to protect
the mill, a request that remains unmet.
Hereinunder is the complaint dated 04.08.2024
filed by the petitioner No.2 to the police authority
herein respondent No. 3 which was not considered:
"Dear Sir,
I, Jitendra Nath Choubey, Director of
Agarpara Jute Mills Limited having its
registered office at 28, B. T. Road,
Kolkata, write to you as follows: -
1. As you are aware, we are the owner of
Agarpara Jute Mill, situated at 28 B. T.
Road, Police Station Khardah, Kolkata-
700 058 have been running the Jute Mill
as the owner thereof since 1985,
2. Yesterday evening at about 7.30 PM,
around 40/50 anti-social elements
gathered at the gate of the Jute Mill and
were attempting to forcibly enter the Jute
Mill. While the workers of the Jute Mill
resisted such anti-social elements, the
Police personnel from the local Police
Station arrived at the scene. While
initially the workers thought that the
hooligans would disappear upon seeing
the Police but to the utter surprise the
arrival of Police further emboldened such
anti-social elements who started creating
ruckus and finally trespassed into the
Jute Mill. To the utter disbelief the Police
party which had arrived at our Jute Mill
instead of preventing such trespassing
started turning a blind eye to such anti-
social elements or stopping them from
entering into the Jute Mill. The hooligans
ultimately used their muscle power to
ensure that our management staffs are
all put in a corner and the staff of
Baranagar Jute Mill start taking
possession over the Jute Mill. Sir,
gradually the number of Police personnel
started increasing and Police personnel
from neighbouring Police Station also
started arriving. Rapid action force also
arrived at the scene. Our promoter Mr.
Ghanshyam Sarda was also at the Jute
Mill, who constantly tried to get in touch
with the Officers, who refused to talk to
him. A SOS WhatsApp. was also sent to
you at your Mobile No. 9051217042. An
email was also sent by us to your official
email id.
3. To the utter dismay, the Police
personnel at the Jute Mill made the plan
of anti-social successful and in the garb
of maintaining law and order, the Police
personnel aided and abetted the illegal
trespassing and forcibly entering of anti-
social elements into the Jute Mill.
4. It later transpired that such anti-
social elements were trespassing at the
behest of one Mr.Govind Kumar Sarda.
Several Officers present at the site were
receiving repeated phone calls from Mr.
Govind Kumar Sarda.
5. To establish such trespass at around 3
AM name of our Jute Mill as painted on
the main gate was also removed and the
name of one Regent Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.,
was painted. A Video showing such
illegal activities carried out at 3 AM was
also forwarded to your mobile No. Sir,
this is a clear case of Police over action.
It has later transpired that the Police has
acted at the instance of one Regent
Vinimay Pvt. Ltd on the basis of certain
fabricated documents executed between
one Agarpara Company Limited and
Regent Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.
6. You will appreciate and also find from
the statutory record that since 1985 the
Jute Mill is owned by our Company
Agarpara Jute Mills Limited and no
owner or any other right exist in favour
of Agarpara Company Limited.
7. Sir, even now our management people
and staffs are being obstructed from
entering the Jute Mill. Stock of finished
goods and raw materials worth over
Rs.20.00 crores is lying inside the Jute
Mill. All statutory records of our company
are also lying with the Jute Mill. While
we find that certain Police personnel are
still standing inside and outside our Jute
Mill gate, our management staffs are not
being allowed to enter the Jute Mill. Sir,
hooligans are continuing free movement
inside and outside the Jute Mill. Our
workers are still inside the Jute Mill, our
stock and records are still inside the Jute
Mill. We are still in possession of the Jute
Mill. However, the Police party at the Jute
Mill is now refusing to allow us from
entering the Jute Mill on the pretext of
some claim made by Regent Vinimay Pvt.
Ltd., Shockingly, such claim of Regent
Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., is being backed by such
Police personnel who are without any
rhyme or reason guarding our Jute Mill
against its own true owner. Sir, the
situation is alarming and we request you
to immediately look into the matter and
ensure that the wrong done at our Jute
Mill is forthwith undone.
We also request you to ensure that no
finished goods stock or our records are
allowed to be removed from our Jute Mill.
Least to say that the same would
tantamount to theft of our property
which is enquired to be protected by you
at any cost.
Request you to take immediate and
corrective measures at our jute Mill."
15. It is also important to recognize that the incidents
of August 3, 2024, have already led to the
registration of FIR No. 107/24, dated August 4,
2024, at Kamarhati Police Station by way of a suo
moto complaint filed by one S.I. Umesh Choudhury
being the S.I. of Kamarhati Police Station at 00.05
hrs. This FIR succinctly describes the events of
that day and names the individuals responsible,
including Ghanashyam Sharda, Govindji Sharda,
and Sailesh Singh. The charges listed in this FIR
include offences under various sections of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), such as
unlawful assembly, obstructing public servants,
causing hurt, and criminal intimidation.
16. In light of these facts, it is imperative that the
police be directed to complete the necessary
investigation in respect of a complaint filed by the
petitioner no.2 on August 4, 2024, the FIR no.
107/ 2024 dated August 4, 2024 and FIR no. 109/
2024 dated August 5, 2024 in a timely manner.
Both the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,
and the new provisions under the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), contain
adequate safeguards to ensure a proper
investigation. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI reported
in (2013) 6 SCC 348, there cannot be a second FIR
for the same offence, and any further information
must be treated as part of the original FIR. This
reinforces the petitioners' claim that their
complaints have not been properly addressed, and
further investigation must proceed.
17. It is well-settled that an FIR should not be
subjected to technical hair-splitting and is not
required to contain exhaustive details of the
incident. Its primary function is to set the
investigative machinery in motion. The petitioner,
in this case, has consistently sought this very
relief--proper police action in response to a serious
offence, which has so far been unjustifiably
delayed. The Hon'ble Court is urged to disregard
any claims of factual inaccuracies in the FIR and
instead focus on the need for thorough and
immediate investigation.
18. In conclusion, the petitioners pray for the
restoration of status quo ante prior to the criminal
trespass on 03.08.2024, along with the
constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT)
under a retired judge, and the registration of an
FIR to address the criminal trespass and theft that
occurred on August 3, 2024. The continued failure
of the police to act in this matter, despite multiple
complaints and serious allegations, only reinforces
the need for judicial intervention to ensure justice
is served.
II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 13:
respectfully submits that Respondent No. 13 is the
promoter and owner of Agarpara Jute Mills Limited
(Petitioner No. 1) and exercises control over the
affairs of the company. In addition to this,
Respondent No. 13 holds the position of promoter
company. By virtue of an Arbitral Award dated
18th July 2009, the ownership, management, and
control of Respondent No. 7 was vested in
Respondent No. 13. Although Respondent No. 13's
brother has filed an application under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to
challenge the award, the challenge only pertains to
alleged errors in calculation and valuation, without
disputing Respondent No. 13's ownership. No stay
on the operation of the award has been granted to
date.
20. It is further submitted that certain illegally
appointed directors of Respondent No. 7 have
repeatedly attempted to interfere with the
management of Agarpara Jute Mills Limited.
However, these attempts have been consistently
thwarted by the National Company Law Tribunal
(NCLT), this Hon'ble Court, and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, as demonstrated by
various judicial orders (NCLT Orders dated 26th
April 2019, 9th January 2017, and 6th April 2017,
and the Supreme Court order dated 23rd October
2017). Despite the failure to disturb the lawful
management through legal channels, Respondent
No. 6, along with the illegal directors of Respondent
No. 7, has resorted to utilizing police overreach to
forcibly trespass into the premises of Agarpara Jute
Mills Limited.
21. It is submitted that the actions of Respondent No. 6
are being actively facilitated by the Respondent
Police Officials, in direct contravention of the
aforementioned judicial orders. Despite clear
rulings from the NCLT, this Hon'ble Court, and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Respondent Police
Officials are attempting to recognize the title of the
illegally appointed directors of Respondent No. 7
over the jute mill premises, in apparent exchange
for extraneous considerations. Such conduct by the
police authorities raises grave concerns regarding
their motive and impartiality in this matter.
22. The ill-intentions of the Respondent Police Officials
become apparent from the allegations made by SI
Umesh Chowdhury in his complaint, wherein it is
falsely alleged that Respondent No. 13 was present
at the jute mill premises at or after 9:02 p.m. on
3rd August 2024. This allegation, forming the basis
of Kamarhati Police Station Case No. 107 of 2024,
is contradicted by verifiable evidence. Respondent
No. 13 had left his office at 21-A, Shakespeare
Sarani, Kolkata at around 8:40 p.m., which is
substantiated by CCTV footage from the office
premises. Furthermore, the CCTV footage from the
jute mill and mobile tower location data clearly
establish that Respondent No. 13 entered the mill
between 9:23 p.m. and 9:30 p.m., disproving the
false timeline presented by the police. A detailed
account of the movement of Respondent No. 13 on
3rd August 2024 is set out in paragraphs 17(a) to
17(k) of the exception filed against the police
reports.
23. The allegations of a disturbance at the jute mill
during the time of Respondent No. 13's presence,
as claimed by SI Umesh Chowdhury, are also
unfounded. The Sub-Inspector, despite claiming
the presence of a ruckus, curiously managed to
identify the persons involved, including Mr.
Ghanshyam Sarda, and noted the absence of Mr.
Govind Sarda, while identifying Mr. Shailendra
Singh as his agent. It is important to highlight that
no injuries were reported, and the only record of
the alleged ruckus exists in the dubious complaint
lodged by SI Umesh Chowdhury. This complaint
appears to have been concocted to provide a facade
of legitimacy to the illegal attempt by Respondent
No. 6 to trespass into the jute mill.
24. It is submitted that the admissions made by
Respondent No. 6 in their affidavit, wherein they
acknowledge the ongoing process of obtaining
necessary permissions and licenses, further
demonstrate that they could not have moved any
material or operated the jute mill without
complying with the legal requirements, including
GST registration. The stock of raw jute and finished
goods within the mill belongs solely to Respondent
No. 13 and the petitioner company, with
crores in raw materials, finished goods, and the
premises itself. The details of this stock are
available in the record.
25. The primary issue before this Hon'ble Court is
whether the police officials facilitated the unlawful
trespass of anti-social elements and agents of
Respondent No. 6 into the Agarpara Jute Mill
premises on 3rd August 2024. It is submitted that
the police officials acted in clear violation of the
Police Act, 1861, and the Police Regulations of
Bengal, 1943. The General Diary entries produced
by the police have been manufactured post facto to
justify their unlawful actions, as these entries were
not made in the prescribed B.P. Form No. 65 and
contravene Regulation 377 of the Police
Regulations. Moreover, despite repeated
opportunities provided by this Hon'ble Court, the
police have failed to produce any command order
authorizing the deployment of the Rapid Action
Force at the mill premises, as required under
Regulation 146.
26. The illegal acts committed by the police in collusion
with Respondent No. 6 cannot be allowed to stand,
as they threaten to undermine the rule of law. The
judiciary, as the guardian of constitutional values,
must ensure that such actions, which are not
backed by any statutory authority, are struck down
to restore faith in the legal system. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of W.B. v. Vishnunarayan &
Associates (P) Ltd., reported in (2002) 4 SCC 134,
has categorically held that possession can only be
taken through lawful means and not by force, in
the absence of any specific statutory provision.
Furthermore, in ABL International Ltd. v. Export
Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., reported
in (2004) 3 SCC 553, the Court held that disputed
questions of fact do not necessarily bar the
jurisdiction of the writ court.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.9
and 10:
27. The Respondents nos. 9 and 10, also representing
worker unions at the Agarpara Jute Mill, submitted
that on August 3, 2024, a group of local hoodlums
and miscreants gathered outside the mill with the
intent to illegally enter the premises. In response,
the workers quickly sealed off all access points to
prevent the intruders from entering. However,
when the police arrived, accompanied by a special
unit of the RAF, they insisted that the gates be
opened, allowing the miscreants to enter. The
unions highlighted that the police were acting on
the basis of a revenue-sharing agreement presented
by respondent no. 6, which related to a different
property (8/11 B.T. Road), while the jute mill is
situated at 28 B.T. Road. They accused the police
of facilitating the illegal trespass, damaging
property, and allowing the miscreants to paint over
the mill's signage. Furthermore, the unions
expressed concern for the safety of the workers and
their families, who reside on the mill premises, and
requests this Court to direct the police to restore
order and remove all illegal trespassers.
IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.11:
28. The principal workers' union of Agarpara Jute Mill
(AJML), representing over 2,000 workers, outlined
the events of August 3, 2024, when anti-social
elements gathered outside the mill. Upon noticing
the assembly, the workers alerted the management,
and efforts were made to contact the police.
However, the respondent highlighted that the anti-
social elements, supported by the police, illegally
trespassed into the mill on August 3, 2024. Despite
pleas from the workers of the petitioner company,
the police did not stop these actions. The
respondent argued that the illegal takeover was
carried out under false pretences and through
forged documents. They requested this Court's
intervention to remove the trespassers and restore
the status quo.
V. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.12:
29. The respondent emphasized the involvement of the
police in facilitating the illegal possession of the
jute mill by anti-social elements on August 3, 2024.
They argued that the respondent no. 6 had no legal
right to the mill and lacked the necessary licenses
and resources to run it. Moreover, the workers
asserts that their provident fund is been paid by
the petitioners for the last twenty years. The
respondent further submitted that the police's
actions were motivated and in collusion with
respondent no. 6. They called for a special
investigation into the police's overreach in the
matter.
VI. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.14:
30. The respondent argued that the workers are a
necessary party to the writ petition since their
livelihoods are directly affected by who controls the
mill. They highlighted that Regent Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.
(herein respondent no. 6) lacks the necessary
licenses and resources to run the mill, which
endangers the workers' employment. The
respondent asserted that the police acted in
collusion with respondent no. 6 to facilitate the
illegal takeover of the mill and requested the court
to protect the workers' interests.
VII. SUBMISSIONS OF THE POLICE
AUTHORTIES:
31. The submission of the Police Authority, being the
state respondents, is detailed herein based on the
investigation reports and the unfolding of events at
Agarpara Jute Mill on August 03, 2024. The State
has filed three reports dated August 7, 2024,
August 12, 2024, and August 13, 2024.
Collectively, these reports outline the role of the
police on the night of the incident. On August 3,
2024, at approximately 8:02 p.m., the Officer-in-
Charge (O.C.) of Kamarhati Police Station, Subrata
Halder, received multiple missed calls from a
mobile number belonging to Shyam Sundar Binani,
representing himself as the Director of Agarpara
Jute Mill Ltd. Mr. Binani informed the O.C. that
there was a major altercation between two groups
of 100-150 people within the mill premises,
requesting immediate police assistance. Following
this, SI Umesh Choudhary lodged a suo-motu
complaint, diarized in the General Diary of
Kamarhati Police Station (GDE No. 105)
corresponding to FIR no. 107/2024, detailing the
same information. A police team led by SI Umesh
Choudhary, along with other personnel, was
immediately dispatched to the mill.
32. Upon reaching the site at approximately 9:02 p.m.,
the police encountered a large, unruly mob inside
the mill premises, estimated to be between 150-200
people, armed with dangerous weapons such as
iron rods and lathis. The police observed that the
mob was led by mill owner Ghanashyam Sharda
and an individual named Sailesh Singh, who was
acting as an agent for another owner, Govind
Sharda. The reports clarify that any alleged
trespass or unlawful entry had taken place before
the arrival of the police, who immediately took
steps to restore order. SI Umesh Choudhary,
assessing the severity of the situation, requested
additional backup, including the deployment of the
Rapid Action Force (RAF), to prevent further
escalation.
33. Concurrently, the police were notified of a separate
incident involving the death of an individual. This
information was relayed by the Deputy
Superintendent of the College of Medicine, Sagar
Dutta Hospital, and was entered in the Kamarhati
Police Station's General Diary (GDE No. 93) on the
same day. The Officer-in-Charge, already dealing
with the situation at the mill, requested the ACP of
Belghoria to deploy RAF personnel. Under the
ACP's direction, the RAF was mobilized to assist
the police in managing the situation at the mill.
The police officers, along with RAF reinforcements,
arrived at the mill and tried to persuade the mob to
vacate the premises. Despite multiple warnings and
requests, the mob refused to disperse, prompting
the police to apply mild force to clear the area. A
police picket was subsequently established at the
mill to maintain law and order.
34. The police reports confirm that the initial
disturbance and alleged trespass occurred before
the police's arrival, and by the time they reached
the scene, the situation had devolved into chaos.
The timeline of the events, as documented in the
General Diary Entries, and the suo-motu complaint
filed by SI Umesh Choudhary, clearly show that the
police were not present during the initial entry of
the alleged trespassers. Instead, they arrived after
the situation had escalated into a violent
confrontation.
35. The claims made by the writ petitioner regarding
the time and manner of the alleged trespass are
inconsistent with the facts documented in the
police reports. In the writ petition, the petitioner
asserts that around 7:00-7:30 p.m. on August 3,
2024, approximately 40-50 anti-social elements
gathered at the mill gate, attempting to forcefully
enter the premises. However, the petitioner alleges
that the police arrival emboldened these
individuals, leading to a trespass shortly thereafter.
The petitioner's timeline contradicts his own
communication--an email sent at 11:20 p.m. on
the same night which states that the anti-social
elements were still merely "trying" to enter the mill
at 7:25 p.m.
36. With regard to the involvement of the Rapid Action
Force (RAF), the petitioner's claims are minimal
and unsupported by substantial evidence. The only
mention of the RAF's presence comes in the form of
a single sentence in paragraph 18 of the writ
petition. No further details regarding the RAF's
engagement or active role in the situation are
provided in the pleadings, nor is there any
corroborative evidence that RAF forces played a
significant role in restoring order beyond their
presence at the scene. The police reports
substantiate that the RAF was deployed on the
orders of the ACP, Belghoria, in compliance with
Bengal Police Regulations, but the RAF was not
actively engaged in the confrontation with the mob.
37. The allegations regarding the defacement and
painting of the main gate of the jute mill,
purportedly carried out with the assistance of the
police, are equally unfounded. It is submitted that
the petitioners make much of this allegation during
oral arguments, yet the basis for this claim is
vague, and the petition per se only briefly mentions
it, which has been affirmed as "derived from
records" without any specificity or accountability
taken by the deponent, one Jitendra Nath Choubey
being the petitioner no.2. Furthermore, the reliance
on photographs and videos to support these
allegations is problematic due to issues with their
authenticity, as the deponent himself has refrained
from certifying their veracity, and they do not meet
the statutory requirements under the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 for admissibility as
electronic records.
38. In conclusion, the submission of the police
authorities demonstrates that the alleged unlawful
entry and trespass took place prior to the arrival of
the police, who acted promptly to restore order
under difficult circumstances. The inconsistencies
in the petitioner's claims, combined with the lack of
credible evidence regarding the RAF's involvement
and the alleged defacement of the mill's gate,
further weaken the petitioner's case. As such, this
Hon'ble Court should refrain from delving into
these disputed factual issues and allow the
appropriate statutory authorities to adjudicate the
matter.
VIII. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT NO. 6:
39. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 6 submits
that after reviewing the writ petition filed by the
petitioners it is evident that the petition lacks both
legal and factual merit. It is contended that the
petition, under the pretence of addressing police
inaction, is in fact an attempt by the petitioners to
establish rights, title, and interest in the Agarpara
Jute Mill. Additionally, the petitioners seek to
dispossess Respondent No. 6 from the said jute
mill, despite the fact that the possession of the mill
was lawfully obtained by Respondent No. 6 through
due process of law from Respondent No. 7. The
counsel further places on record certain relevant
facts and documents which unequivocally
demonstrate that the petition is liable to be
dismissed at the threshold.
40. It is submitted that Respondent No. 7 is the
rightful owner of the said jute mill, along with the
adjoining properties, including a riverside
bungalow, orchard land, fire brigade ground,
godowns, warehouses, and other lands not forming
part of the jute mill. The total land area under the
possession of Respondent No. 7 amounts to
approximately 59 acres, of which the jute mill
comprises 4 acres. The learned counsel submits
that the Record of Rights (LR) clearly reflects
Respondent No. 7 as the lawful raiyat of the entire
59 acres, including the jute mill. Further, the
counsel draws the Court's attention to the Master
Data of both Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No.
7, which have been obtained from the Ministry of
Corporate Affairs.
41. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 6 also
submits that a Revenue Sharing Agreement was
duly executed between Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 on
the 1st of August, 2024, under which Respondent
No. 6 lawfully took possession of the said jute mill
on the 3rd of August, 2024. It is emphasized that
the possession of the jute mill was peaceful and
without any disturbance. Respondent No. 6 has
made no retrenchments and has continued
operations in the mill, running two shifts per day
and intending to increase operations to six days per
week.
42. The counsel further submits that Respondent No. 6
is in full compliance with all legal requirements,
and all necessary licenses and registrations are
being obtained. The agreement is in the process of
being duly registered, and the requisite stamp
duties and registration fees are being paid in
compliance with the law. A query slip dated 6th
August, 2024, has already been generated.
Respondent No. 6 is also bearing the costs of
running the jute mill and has settled all running
liabilities, including electricity charges from 1st
July, 2024, and wages for the labourers and
managerial staff for the month of July 2024.
43. Additionally, the counsel submits that Respondent
No. 6 is in the process of ascertaining and
addressing various statutory dues, including
Provident Fund, Employees' State Insurance, and
taxes under the West Bengal Sales Tax, Central
Sales Tax, CGST, Central Excise, and Customs
Duty, which collectively amount to several crores of
rupees. Respondent No. 6 reserves its right to
disclose relevant documents at the appropriate
stage.
44. The learned counsel also highlights the disturbance
caused by a gang of hooligans sent by one
Ghanshyam Sarda, who attempted to forcibly take
possession of the jute mill on the 3rd of August,
2024. Respondent No. 6 immediately lodged a
complaint with the local police at Kamarhati Police
Station being FIR no. 198/2024 dated August 5,
2024.
45. The counsel further informs the Court that
Respondent No. 6 has filed Title Suit No. 821 of
2024 before the Learned 3rd Court of Civil Judge
(Senior Division) at Barasat, along with an
application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the
Civil Procedure Code.
46. In conclusion, the counsel for Respondent No. 6
submits that the possession of the jute mill was
lawfully obtained without any assistance from the
police, and the mill continues to operate smoothly
under the control of Respondent No. 6. The counsel
prays for the dismissal of the writ petition on the
grounds mentioned above, as it is without merit
and an attempt to misappropriate the lawful
possession of Respondent No. 6.
IX. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT NO. 7:
47. Respondent No. 7 (hereinafter referred to as 'ACL')
asserts that the actual possession of the jute mill
at the disputed property was with AJML, the writ
petitioner No.1, as until August 3, 2024.
X. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.8:
48. The Respondent No. 8, representing another
worker's union at the Agarpara Jute Mill, argued
that the writ petition primarily concerns the
jurisdiction of this Court to assess police inaction
or overaction during the incident on August 3,
2024. The respondent emphasized that, as per the
petitioners' own admission, they continue to
possess the mill, thus negating any claim of
dispossession. If there is a claim of dispossession,
the appropriate forum for resolving such disputes
is the civil court, not the writ court. They further
argued that the petitioners are attempting to
convert a writ petition into a civil suit, which is not
permissible under the law. Additionally, the
respondent submitted that this case primarily
involves a private dispute between businessmen,
and the writ court should not interfere in such
matters and relied on legal precedents, such as
Shri Sohan Lal vs. Union of India and Samir Ali
Mallick vs. The State of West Bengal, to support
their position that the petitioners should seek civil
remedies rather than writ relief.
XI. REPLY OF THE PETITIONER TO THE
SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE
STATE RESPONDENTS:
49. The State Respondents have placed undue
emphasis on prayers (c) and (d) of the writ petition
to support their contention that the reliefs sought
are limited to "Agarpara Jute Mill" and do not
extend to the petitioner. However, this argument is
fundamentally flawed both in fact and in law.
Prayers (c) and (d) must be read in conjunction
with prayer (b), wherein the petitioner clearly seeks
police protection to ensure that the business of the
petitioner at Agarpara Jute Mill is not obstructed or
hindered in any way. A plain reading of the
petition, especially paragraphs 24 to 36, makes it
abundantly clear that the references to "Agarpara
Jute Mill" in prayers (c) and (d) are directly related
to the manufacturing and business activities
conducted by the petitioner at the mill. In fact,
prayer (d) explicitly mentions the "mill premises of
the petitioner and Agarpara Jute Mill," further
underscoring that these prayers cannot be viewed
in isolation or separate from the petitioner's
interests.
50. Moreover, the State Respondents' submission
regarding the FIRs registered on the basis of
complaints made by various parties, including
Umesh Chowdhury, SI of Kamarhati P.S., the
petitioner, and Respondent 6, is misleading. The
reality remains that no FIR has been registered
based on the petitioner's specific complaint
dated August 04, 2024. This complaint detailed
serious allegations of criminal trespass facilitated
by police personnel, including the deployment of
the Rapid Action Force (RAF) and other officers, in
collusion with private respondents and their
affiliates. Despite the gravity of the allegations, no
FIR has been lodged to date, even though the
Barrackpore Police Commissionerate, Kamarhati
P.S., and Khardah P.S. were duly notified.
51. Further, the State has failed to provide any
satisfactory explanation for the inconsistencies
within the Third Police Report dated 13.08.2024,
particularly regarding the deployment of the RAF.
The General Diary Entry (GDE) attached to the
report records that the Officer-in-Charge (O.C.) of
Kamarhati, along with the RAF and ACP of
Belghoria, departed the police station at 20:30
hours to address the law-and-order situation in
Dasubabu Bagan area. However, there is no
corresponding GDE entry confirming the RAF's
arrival at the police station or their movement to
the mill premises. This glaring omission
undermines the O.C.'s claim, made on the report,
that the ACP, who was already present at the police
station, accompanied him and the RAF to the mill
premises upon receiving a request from SI Umesh
Chowdhury. Moreover, despite this Hon'ble Court's
order dated 08.08.2024 directing the State to place
on record the order for RAF deployment, none of
the three reports submitted by the State disclose
such an order.
52. The second police report, dated 12.08.2024, stated
that two communications were sent to the
petitioner and Respondent 6 requesting CCTV
footage of the incident from 03.08.2024. However,
the Third Police Report, dated 13.08.2024, makes
an inconsistent claim that the O.C. visited the mill
premises on 08.08.2024 to personally collect the
footage, though he was allegedly denied access at
that time. Yet, the O.C.'s requisition to Respondent
No.6 for CCTV footage was sent on 05.08.2024,
well before the Court's order on 08.08.2024, raising
further doubts about the integrity of the police's
handling of the investigation.
53. Additionally, discrepancies in the requisitions sent
to the petitioner and Respondent 6 regarding the
CCTV footage reveal further inconsistencies. The
communication dated 05.08.2024, addressed to
Respondent 6, requests footage from 8:00 PM on
03.08.2024 to 2:00 AM on 04.08.2024, while the
notice sent to the petitioner on 10.08.2024
requests footage from 7:30 PM on 03.08.2024 to
4:00 AM on 04.08.2024. Notably, the requisition
sent to Respondent No.6 also includes the phrase
"your factory," which aligns with the O.C.'s
description of Respondent No.6 as the "present
management" in the Third Police Report. This
suggests a possible bias in favor of Respondent
No.6, which remains unexplained by the State.
54. Furthermore, the petitioner has made explicit
allegations of police complicity in the commission
of cognizable offences in the petition. These
allegations have not been denied by the police
authorities through an affidavit, nor have the
veracity of the photographs annexed to the first
Supplementary Affidavit and the Combined
Exception to the three police reports been
questioned. During submissions, the learned AAAG
objected to the admissibility of these photographs,
citing Section 63 of the BSA and relying on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun
Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
(2020) 7 SCC 1. However, this judgment clearly
holds that certificates under Section 65-B(4) of the
Indian Evidence Act (now Section 63(4) of the BSA,
2023) can be produced at any stage before the
commencement of trial. At the stage of FIR
registration, no such certificate is mandatory. The
requisition for CCTV footage issued to the
petitioner on 10.08.2024 does not demand any
certificate under Section 63(4), further
demonstrating that the State's objection is without
merit.
55. The State has taken contradictory positions in this
matter by questioning the admissibility of
photographs annexed to the petition while relying
on electronic records such as WhatsApp messages
exchanged between Respondent No.13 and the
Commissioner of Barrackpore Police
Commissionerate. Given that these WhatsApp
messages have not been denied, and the State does
not dispute their validity, they must be accepted
under Section 63 of the BSA, 2023. The State
cannot selectively apply standards of admissibility
to electronic records based on convenience.
56. In conclusion, the State Respondents have failed to
provide credible explanations for the serious lapses
in their handling of this case, including
inconsistencies in the police reports, not registering
the petitioners' complaint dated August 04, 2024,
and their contradictory stance on electronic
evidence. Therefore, the petitioner respectfully
submits that the arguments advanced by the State
Respondents are devoid of merit.
XII. REPLY OF THE PETITIONER TO THE
SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT NO. 6:
57. In response to the submissions made on behalf of
Respondent No.6, the petitioner respectfully
submits that Respondent No.6 has largely adopted
the arguments advanced by the State Respondents,
with a particular emphasis on the complaint dated
05.08.2024. This complaint was registered as
Kamarhati P.S. Case No.109 of 2024, wherein the
respondents attempt to create the impression that
the incident in question occurred at 7:30 PM, at
which time police personnel were not present.
Based on this timeline, the private respondents
argue that no case of police overaction or inaction
can be made out by the petitioner.
58. However, upon close examination of the said
complaint, it becomes clear that it pertains to the
theft of seven trucks loaded with jute bales and
finished products valued at over ₹1.5 crores. The
complaint's first paragraph mentions a serious
incident that took place on 03.08.2024, around
7:30 PM, which had already been brought to the
notice of police authorities. Therefore, the private
respondents' argument based solely on the timing
of the incident is untenable. The said complaint
must be read in conjunction with the petitioner's
earlier complaint dated 04.08.2024, which was
sent via email to the Barrackpore Police
Commissionerate, Kamarhati P.S., and Khardah
P.S. Despite disclosing the commission of
cognizable offences by the private respondents in
collusion with police authorities, no FIR has been
registered on the basis of the petitioner's
complaint. This omission clearly establishes police
inaction and complicity.
59. It has been the petitioner's consistent case that
Respondent Nos.6 and 7, in collusion with the
police, attempted to forcibly take possession of the
mill. At no point has the petitioner claimed to have
been dispossessed of the mill, a fact that further
weakens the respondents' defence. In their
submissions, Respondent No.6 has also failed to
deny the material averments made in the writ
petition and supplementary affidavit. The veracity
of the photographs submitted by the petitioner,
which clearly depict the actions of the respondents,
has not been challenged either. By failing to contest
these material pleadings and documents,
Respondent No.6 invites the application of the
doctrine of non-traverse. This doctrine presumes
that unchallenged facts and documents are
accepted as true, and the respondents' lack of
specific denials further supports the petitioner's
case.
60. In their written notes of submission, Respondent
No.6 relies on several judicial pronouncements
concerning the enforceability of schemes of
arrangement that are not duly stamped under the
Indian Stamp Act. They cite Emami Biotech Ltd.
and Another v. State of West Bengal as reported in
2012 SCC Online Cal 1425, affirmed by the
Division Bench in ITP Limited, 2012 SCC Online Cal
9802. However, a Division Bench of this Hon'ble
Court had already considered these judgments in
Castron Technologies Limited v. Castron Mining
Limited, 2013 SCC Online Cal 12914 (2013) 5 CHN
553 (DB). The Division Bench held that the mere
non-payment of stamp duty does not invalidate a
scheme of arrangement sanctioned by the
Company Court, and such an arrangement cannot
be recalled on that basis. The judgment in Castron
Technologies (supra) has been affirmed by the
Supreme Court, further diminishing the relevance
of Respondent No.6's arguments.
61. Additionally, Respondent No.6 relies on the
judgment in Smt. Sheta Dutta v. Birpur Fishermen
Co-operative Society, 2018 SCC Online Cal 8725,
however, this judgment is inapplicable to the
present case. The facts in that matter related to
disputes over title to a "beel," which were already
pending before the West Bengal Land Reforms
Tenancy Tribunal (WBLRTT). The Division Bench in
that case merely allowed the parties to continue
their claims before the WBLRTT, which bears no
resemblance to the issues in the current petition.
62. Similarly, Respondent No.6's reliance on Hari Singh
v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 733 is misplaced. In
that case, the Supreme Court denied a prayer for a
CBI investigation, holding that in cases where no
action is taken on a police complaint, the
complainant may file a private complaint before the
jurisdictional magistrate under Sections 190 and
200 Cr.P.C. However, this judgment was delivered
before the landmark Constitution Bench ruling in
Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, which
established that police officers are under a
mandatory duty to register an FIR when
information discloses a cognizable offence. In the
present case, the petitioner's complaint clearly
discloses cognizable offences, yet no FIR has been
registered, making Lalita Kumari directly
applicable.
63. Respondent No.6 also relies on the judgments in
Aleque Padamsee's case, (2007) 6 SCC 171 and
Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of
Maharashtra, (2004) 7 SCC 768, which suggest that
remedies for non-registration of an FIR lie in
Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C.
However, in light of the Lalita Kumari (spura)
judgment, which mandates FIR registration when
cognizable offences are disclosed, these precedents
are no longer of relevance. The petitioner's
complaint dated 04.08.2024 clearly disclosed such
offences, yet no action was taken by the police.
Therefore, the petitioner respectfully submits that
the arguments advanced by Respondent No.6 are
without merit.
64. Furthermore, Respondent No.6's reliance on Court
on its Motion, WP(Crl.) No.796 of 2007 concerning
the admissibility of electronic evidence is similarly
unconvincing. This case dealt with sting
operations, court witnesses, and contempt
proceedings, and was later modified by the
Supreme Court in R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court,
(2010) 8 SCC 106 and subsequently dealt with
again in R.K. Anand, (2013) 1 SCC 218. None of
these cases bear any resemblance to the present
case. In view of the contradictory and inconsistent
positions taken by Respondent No.6 regarding the
timing of their alleged possession of the mill, the
respondent's affidavit ought to be disbelieved
entirely.
XIII.OBSERVATIONS AND DIRECTIONS MADE
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT:
65. Heard the Learned Counsels for the parties at length.
66. This Court finds it imperative to transfer the
investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI) based on the cumulative failures and
questionable conduct of the state police authorities.
This decision is driven by the Court's concern that
the state police had compromised the integrity of
the investigation due to their alleged involvement in
facilitating the unlawful activities at Agarpara Jute
Mills and their subsequent failure to follow legal
procedures.
67. The petitioner had repeatedly raised allegations of
collusion between the State police and private
Respondent No.6, who were accused of
orchestrating the unlawful trespass at the mill.
Despite these serious allegations, the state police
did not act on the petitioner's complaints in a
timely or effective manner. This was evident in the
inconsistent reports filed by the police, the failure
to take swift action during the events of August 3,
2024, and the subsequent lack of investigation into
the complaint submitted by the petitioner on
August 4, 2024. The inaction and procedural
lapses suggested that the state police were not
operating with the impartiality required in such a
case.
68. This court had given explicit directions to the state
to provide crucial evidence, such as the CCTV
footage during the relevant time, the State
repeatedly failed to produce this evidence despite
being given three opportunities to do so. The
evasive stance taken by the state--claiming they
did not know whether the body cam of the RAF
personnel were switched on, and providing no
explanation for the absence of CCTV footage from
the place of occurrence--demonstrated a lack of
transparency and accountability. This failure
further weakened the credibility of the state police's
investigation.
69. No documentation was provided by any party,
including the state police, to demonstrate how and
when the petitioner allegedly handed over
possession of the jute mill to the respondents,
despite the submission of extensive affidavits. This
absence of key documentation cast further doubt
on the legitimacy of the respondents' claims and
reinforced the petitioner's argument that the
trespass was unlawful and facilitated by the police.
The lack of such critical evidence undermined the
state's case and indicated that the investigation
had not been conducted with the thoroughness or
neutrality required.
70. It is crucial to note that the entry of the Rapid
Action Force (RAF) into the premises of Agarpara
Jute Mill was unauthorized and contrary to
established protocols. According to Police Order No.
03 of 1999, the RAF is a specialized unit deployed
only in situations involving large-scale communal
disturbances, violent riots, or other severe threats
to public order. The purpose of such a deployment
is to restore peace and manage high-risk scenarios
that local law enforcement may not be adequately
equipped to handle. In this case, however, no such
law-and-order emergency existed at the time of
their deployment. Therefore, the question persists
as to how the RAF was allowed to enter the mill
premises without any valid written requisition or
Command Order, which are mandatory under the
procedural guidelines. Paragraph 10(b) of Police
Order No. 03 of 1999 clearly states that the RAF
cannot be deployed for routine guard duties or any
activities outside of their specialized function
unless specific conditions are met. The state's
failure to produce key video evidence, created the
impression that the police were actively
suppressing facts to protect the respondents and
cover up their involvement. Given the serious
allegations of police complicity, the court concluded
that the state police had compromised the integrity
of the investigation and could not be trusted to
pursue the case impartially.
71. Citing previous legal precedents such as Lalita
Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 20212 SC
1515 which mandates the registration of an FIR
when a cognizable offense is disclosed, the court
emphasized that the state police had a duty to
investigate the petitioner's complaints thoroughly.
The failure of the police to act on the petitioner's
August 4, 2024 complaint, despite clear evidence of
cognizable offenses, highlighted the need for an
independent investigative body.
72. In light of the serious lapses in investigation and
the overall compromised role of the State police,
this Court directs that the case be transferred to
the CBI. This transfer includes the case diary, the
complaint filed by the petitioner on August 4, 2024,
and all relevant documents in relation to the FIR
no. 107/2024 dated August 4, 2024, FIR no.
109/2024 dated August 5, 2024 and FIR no.
198/2024 dated August 05, 2024. The Officer-in-
Charge Kamarhati Police Station along with the
investigating officers of the FIRs registered at
Kamarhati Police Station are directed to handover
all the relevant documents such as the case diary,
CCTV footage (if any), and body cam recordings (if
any) to the officer designated by the CBI within two
(02) days from today. The court recognized that
only an impartial and independent investigation,
free from the influence of local police authorities,
could ensure that justice may be served. CBI's
involvement was deemed essential to restore faith
in the legal process and ensure that all parties
involved were held accountable for their actions.
73. Leave is granted to the petitioner to add CBI as a
party respondent in this matter and amend the
cause title. A copy of the informal paper book be
served upon C.B.I.
74. The investigating officer of the CBI is to file report
before this Court positively on November 11, 2024
at 2.00 P.M.
75. Let this matter again appear in the list on
11th November, 2024 at 2.00 P.M. under the
heading "To be mentioned."
76. In the meantime, interim order granted on
6th August, 2024 shall continue till 15th November,
2024 or until further order, whichever is earlier.
77. Mr. Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 6 prays stay of operation of this
order.
78. Prayer for stay of operation of this order is
considered and rejected.
79. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order
duly obtained from the official website of this
Court.
(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)
