High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 05 CAL CK 0063

Smt. Papia Bhattacharya vs The State of West Bengal and Others

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 4 May 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 7700 (W) of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 346 words

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.—The Court: The Petitioner in this Article 226 petition dated April 28, 2011 is seeking a mandamus commanding the Respondents to take necessary steps for investigating the case.

2.

Referring to the First Information Report dated April 2, 2011 at p.19, Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the Petitioner submits that for undisclosed reasons the investigating officer has not arrested any of the persons named in the FIR.

3.

Ms Roy appearing for the State has submitted that the girl alleging whose kidnapping the case was registered has since been recovered and produced before the Magistrate who has recorded her statement u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure and that the investigation of the case is in progress.

4.

Counsel for the private Respondents submits that false allegations of commission of offence have been made against the private Respondents.

5.

It is not for this Court to decide whether there is any element of truth in the allegations made by the Petitioner. Power under Article 226 is not to be exercised for directing the investigating officer to arrest the persons against whom the accusation of commission of offence has been made. Whether anyone should be arrested in the interest of investigation is a question that is to be decided by the investigating officer. If the Petitioner has any reason to feel aggrieved, she is free to approach the Criminal Court with appropriate complaint or application.

6.

Since the girl concerning whom the case was registered has since been recovered and her statement u/s 164 of the Code has been recorded by the Magistrate, I do not find any reason to accept the case that no step has been taken for investigation of the case. The case was started only on April 2, 2011. It is hoped that the investigating officer shall complete the investigation of the case as expeditiously as possible. He will keep in mind that delay in completion of the investigation of the case is bound to prejudice the parties irreparably.

7.

With these observations, the petition is disposed of. No costs. Certified xerox.