Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Ms. Saluja Motey vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 August, 2019

Author: Debangsu Basak

Bench: Debangsu Basak

                                                         1


06.08.2019
Ct. No.8
S/L No.74
KS


                                   W. P. No.14391 (W) of 2019

                                     Ms. Saluja Motey
                                           Versus
                                    The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                                        Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya
                                        Mr. Arunava Ghosh
                                        Mr. Manoj Malhotra
                                        Mr. Ravi Kumar Dubey
                                                     .....For the Petitioner
                                        Mr. Kishore Dutta
                                        Mr. Avratosh Majumdar
                                        Mr. Subhabrata Dutta
                                        Mr. Benazir Ahmed
                                                     .....For the State
                                        Mr. Mainak Ganguly
                                        Mr. Arnet Kumar Shaw
                                                 .....For the Respondent No.8

Petitioner complains of police over‐action.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the complaint dated July 20, 2019 and submits that, the police officials acted in abuse of their powers. He submits that, in the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to transfer the investigation of the complainant to an authority other than the State police.

The State respondents are represented by the Additional Advocate General. In the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to permit the parties to file affidavits.

Let affidavit in opposition be filed within two weeks from date, reply thereto, if any, be filed three days thereafter.

List the writ petition under the same heading on August 30, 2019. 2 Learned Senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the police have sealed the residence of the petitioner. At least, as an interim measure, the police be directed to de‐seal the residential premises of the petitioner.

Learned Advocate General appearing for the State respondents submits that, the investigation is at a nascent stage. He opposes the prayer for de‐sealing, at this stage.

Since, direction for filing affidavits have been given and since, the writ petition is to be heard finally, it would be appropriate to decide on such de‐sealing after affording the parties an opportunity to file affidavit.

Neither this order nor the pendency of this writ petition, however, will prevent police authorities from de‐sealing the property, if they deem it appropriate. It will not prevent the petitioner from approaching the jurisdictional Court for the purpose of obtaining an order of de‐sealing, if so advised.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

(Debangsu Basak, J.)