Syed Shamsul Arefin vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

The writ petitioner appearing in person is a learned advocate of this Court. He submits that he has purchased a plot of land and has started a

Madrasah there, in place of the old Madrasah which was running there under the name of ‘Nabadia Koerania Madrasha’. Some miscreants

broken to the Madrasah, damaged the building and utensils, looted away the books including the Holy Qur’an. When the writ petitioner complained

to the local police station (respondent no.3 herein) instead of initiating an First Information Report and a criminal case, according to the writ petitioner,

the respondent no.3 did nothing.

A supplementary affidavit was filed with the leave of the Court by which the writ petitioner brought on record that instead of starting an First

Information Report on the complaint of the petitioner, the respondent no.3 took away the ‘chairs’, ‘tables’, ‘sataranchi’, some

books including the Holy ‘Qur’an’, referred to above without a seizure list.

An affidavit was affirmed by the respondent no.3 on July 22, 2014 to such supplementary affidavit where the respondent no.3 submitted that pursuant

to the order of this Court passed on June 27, 2014, a case (P.S. case no. 61/2014) was started on the complaint of the writ petitioner herein and also

on the basis of a counter complaint made by a lady (case no. 62/2014) of the same Police Station under Sections 341/323/325/34 of the Indian Penal

Code and Sections 3/4 of the E.C. Act was started by the same respondent no.3 without however, such persons having been required to go to the

Writ Court to obtain such relief.

Apparently, charge sheets have already been filed in both the cases. It is admitted by the respondent no.3 that the articles, as alleged by the writ

petitioner, had been seized, but the respondent no.3 says that it was by the investigating officer in course of the investigation and it is alleged that a

seizure list was prepared. However, significantly no copy of such seizure list has been annexed to the affidavit.

Today, when the matter is called on, none appears for the respondents even though the writ petitioner has appeared in person. No accommodation is

sought for on behalf of the respondents or any of them. Since the respondent no.3 has already used an affidavit, but has not disclosed any copy of the

seizure list, which would support his contentions that seizure list was prepared, I am inclined to draw an adverse influence against the respondent no.3.

The respondent no.3 is directed to return each and every item taken away by the police from the Madrasah in question, as stated by the writ petitioner

in his supplementary affidavit to which the respondent no.3 has used his affidavit aforesaid. Such returning of the articles illegally taken by he police

authorities shall be completed from seventy-two hours from communication of the order passed hereof.

For the sake of convenience, the writ petitioner will provide a complete list of articles, which have been taken away from his Madrasah, to the

respondent no.3. Inasmuch as charge sheet had already been filed, nothing remains in the writ petition as originally framed, therefore, the writ petition

is disposed of without passing any order other than as has been passed above. The writ petitioner shall communicate this order to the respondents and

each of them. There will be no order as to costs.