Md Imran v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

D/L 48 17.01.2025 Bpg.

ct.no.35 W.P.A.365 of 2025 Md. Imran

Versus

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Anirban Dutta Mr. Mahesh Joshi Mr. Sandip Joshi Mr. Kajal Kr. Dutta.

...for the petitioner.

Mr. Swapan Banerjee Mr. Soumen Chatterjee.

...for the State-respondents.

Mr. Sardar Amjad Ali Mr. Samir Kumar Ghosh Mr. Puranjan Pal.

...for the respondent nos. 6 & 7.

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept with the record.

Petitioner is aggrieved by the progress of New Market Police Station Case No.49 of 2024 dated 01.04.2024. The contention of the petitioner is that the private respondents had been grabbing properties by flexing their authorities with different public offices on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. Petitioner is dissatisfied with the progress of the investigation as till date the investigating agency could not come to a logical conclusion.

State has submitted a report. Report reflects that the police authorities have taken steps for collection of documents particularly with regard to the accusations in respect of the forged deed which has been complained of.

It is also brought to the notice by the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.6 and 7 that a proceeding before the BL & LRO under Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act has been filed. The same is a part of the reflection from the order passed in CRM(A) 2787 of 2024. It has also been submitted on behalf of the State that a Title Suit being T.S.No.45 of 2024 is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 5th Court, Alipore.

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner approached this Court being aggrieved by the progress of the investigation, I am of the view that since documentary evidence and its genuinity is to be examined by the investigating agency, it may not be conducive to direct the investigation to be concluded within a specified period of time. However, a superior police officer in the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police would monitor the investigation and he would at least once in a month call for a report regarding the progress of the investigation from the officer

concerned so that the investigation can be taken to its logical conclusion within a reasonable period of time. With the aforesaid observations, WPA 365 of 2025 is disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs.

Report so submitted be kept with the record.

A copy of the report be handed over to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)