Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Anuduyti Majumdar @ Anudyuti Majumdar vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 1 August, 2026
Author: Kausik Chanda
Bench: Kausik Chanda
01.08.2026
Item no. 226
Ct. No.237
AKG
C.R.R. 3146 of 2026
Anuduyti Majumdar @ Anudyuti Majumdar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Antarikhya Basu,
Ms. Madhumita Basak,
Ms. Mayurakshi Saha
…for the Petitioner
By filing the present revisional application, the petitioner
seeks the quashing of the proceedings arising out of Diamond
Harbour Police Station Case No. 245 of 2026, dated June 17,
2026, registered under Sections 342, 323, 325, 348, 355, 506,
307, 166A, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, corresponding
to G.R. Case No. 2128 of 2026, presently pending before the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Diamond Harbour,
South 24 Parganas.
It appears that the aforesaid proceedings were initiated on the
basis of a complaint lodged by opposite party no. 2. According to
the complaint, at the relevant point of time, opposite party no. 2
was an elected Councillor of Ward No. 7 within the jurisdiction of
Diamond Harbour Police Station. It is alleged that on February
10, 2023, he was subjected to severe physical torture by certain
police officials attached to Diamond Harbour Police Station in the
presence of the petitioner, who was serving as the Officer-in-
Charge of the said police station at the relevant time. It is further
alleged, inter alia, that he was brutally assaulted inside the police
2
station, that the police personnel attempted to strangulate him,
and that they administered electric shocks to his body, rendering
him impotent for a considerable period.
Prima facie, it is difficult to accept the veracity of the
allegations made in the F.I.R., particularly in view of the fact that,
at the relevant point of time, opposite party no. 2 was an elected
Councillor belonging to the then ruling party. The F.I.R. came to
be lodged approximately three years after the date of the alleged
incident. No satisfactory explanation has been offered for such an
inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R., especially when opposite
party no. 2 was, at the relevant time, an elected representative of
the ruling party.
It further appears that, notwithstanding the delay of
approximately three years in lodging the complaint giving rise to
the F.I.R., no preliminary enquiry was conducted prior to its
registration. On the contrary, the F.I.R. was registered on the very
same day on which the complaint was received.
Such a course of action appears, prima facie, to be
inconsistent with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the judgment reported at (2014) 2 SCC 1 (Lalita
Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh).
It further appears that the petitioner was issued a notice
under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, and that the petitioner has duly complied with the said
notice.
3
Let a copy of this application be served upon the opposite
parties with an intimation that the matter shall be listed in the
Combined Monthly List of November, 2026. An affidavit of service
to that effect shall be filed on the next date of hearing.
In view of the aforesaid, the investigating agency shall not take
any coercive steps against the petitioner for a period of six months
from date.
List this matter in the Combined Monthly List of November,
2026, under the heading “Contested Application.”
(Kausik Chanda, J.)
