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 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Sri Indranil Mukherjee vs The State Of West Bengal & Others on 7 March, 2017

Author: Debangsu Basak

Bench: Debangsu Basak

                                             1


07-03-2017
  S.D.
                                    WP 29 (W) of 2017

                                Sri Indranil Mukherjee
                                         Versus
                           The State of West Bengal & Others

                    Mr. Anindya Lahiri
                    Mr. Samrat Dey Paul
                                                 ... For the petitioner.

                    Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharya
                    Mr. Anupam Bhattacharya
                             ...For the Respondent Nos. 9 & 10.

Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu Mr. Rahul Halder ....For the Respondent No. 11.

Mr. Amitesh Banerjee....Sr. Adv.

Mr. Tarak Karan ....For the State.

This writ petition is specially assigned to this Bench. The petitioner has two fold complaints in the writ petition.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not received copies of all the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against the petitioner. His other grievance is that the Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate is 2 not following the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in W.P. 68 of 2016.

The private respondents and the State Authorities are represented.

Learned Advocate for the State submits that there are several criminal cases pending against the petitioner. In some of those criminal proceedings, charge sheets have been filed.

He requires some time to produce the copies of the FIR lodged against the petitioner. He seeks time till March 14, 2017 for such purpose.

Learned Advocate for the respondent no. 11 submits that his wife has lodged an FIR against the petitioner.

Learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 9 and 10 submits that, there are disputes between the private respondents and the petitioner. The disputes are of private in nature and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

Apparently, the petitioner has not received copies of all FIRs lodged against him. The State Authorities have a different version to that extent.

3

Be that as it may, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice, to direct the State Authorities to make over the copies of all FIRs lodged against the petitioner within March 9, 2017. The State Authorities will make over the copies of such FIRs on March 10, 2017 in Court to the petitioner.

List the writ petition on March 10, 2017. All points raised by the parties are kept open to be considered.

(Debangsu Basak, J.) 4