Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rabindra Nath Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 1 August, 2026
Author: Kausik Chanda
Bench: Kausik Chanda
01.08.2026
Sl. No.227.
Ct. No.237
Suman
CRR 3147 of 2026
Rabindra Nath Roy
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Antarikhya Basu
Ms. Madhumita Basak
Ms. Mayurakshi Saha
..for the petitioner
The petitioner has filed the present revisional application
seeking the quashing of the proceedings arising out of
Diamond Harbour Police Station Case No. 244 of 2026,
dated June 17, 2026, registered under Sections 342, 331,
506, 386, 388, 166A, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2127 of 2026,
presently pending before the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Diamond Harbour, South 24 Parganas.
The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of an
undated complaint received on June 17, 2026, lodged by
opposite party no. 2. In the said complaint, it has been
alleged that on April 18, 2024, he was picked up from his
residence by certain police personnel and taken to Diamond
Harbour Police Station, where he was subjected to severe
physical torture by the officials attached to the said police
station over a period of approximately ten days commencing
from April 18, 2024. It is alleged that, as a result of such
brutal torture, he lost his capacity to engage in sexual
intercourse. According to the complaint, he was ultimately
2
permitted to return home only after being compelled to pay a
sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) to the police
officials concerned.
From the documents disclosed in the present application,
it prima facie appears that, on the alleged date of the
incident, the petitioner was not posted at Diamond Harbour
Police Station. Rather, he was serving as a Sub-Inspector in
the office of the District Intelligence Branch (DIB), South 24
Parganas.
It further appears that, notwithstanding the delay of
approximately two 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).
In view of the aforesaid, there shall be a stay of all
further proceedings in connection with Diamond Harbour
Police Station Case No. 244 of 2026, dated June 17, 2026,
registered under Sections 342, 331, 506, 386, 388, 166A,
and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, corresponding to
G.R. Case No. 2127 of 2026, pending before the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Diamond Harbour,
South 24 Parganas, insofar as the petitioner is concerned,
for a period of six months from the date of this order.
3
List this matter in the Combined Monthly List of
November, 2026, under the heading “Contested Application.”
The petitioner shall serve a copy of the revisional
application upon the opposite parties and shall file an
affidavit of service on the next date fixed for hearing.
(Kausik Chanda, J.)
