Ranjit Sarkar v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

23.04.2025 WPA 6570 of 2025 Sl.No.

Court No. 35 Ranjit Sarkar -VsThe State of West Bengal & Ors.

G.S.Das Mr. Amitabha Ghosh Ms. Nabanita Chatterjee ... for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Somnath Ganguli, ld. AGP Ms. Sangeeta Roy ... for the State-respondent(s) Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner be kept with the record.

Mr.

Ganguli, learned Additional Government Pleader, on the earlier occasion submitted the Case Diary.

I find that Balurghat P.S. Case No. 103 of 2025 dated 18.02.2025 was registered for investigation under Section 137(2)/140(3) of the BNS. The said FIR was registered pursuant to a complaint submitted by one Jyothsna Barman.

The accusations in the written complaint were to the effect that one Ranjit Sarkar had taken the brother of the

complainant namely Subal Barman for the purposes of working as a labour. On 07.02.2025, the petitioner/accused persons had been to the house of the complainant for getting information regarding her brother, who took him to work as a labour on 08.02.2025 for Bangalore.

Since 08.02.2025, the whereabouts of her brother was not available and in spite of repeated queries the accused/petitioner could not furnish any information. The complainant was under belief that his brother was kept in a secluded place with ill motive. The said information was registered as Balurghat P.S. GDE. No. 0151 of 2025 dated 18.02.2025.

Pursuant to the investigation having commenced, the investigating officer carried out the investigation and, in course of investigation, on or about 26th March, 2025, the victim/missing person, namely, Subal Barman aged about 45 years

returned to his village and reported to the police station.

Consequently, an Inspection Memo was prepared and, subsequently, statement of the missing person (Subal Barman) was recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.

I have considered the statement under Sections 183 of the BNSS and I do not find any complicity of the present petitioner and it is reflected from the statement that said Subal Barman after reaching Bangalore somehow or the other lost track and/or trace of the contractor and, after one and half month reached to his home.

Having considered that there was no culpability available for which the petitioner has to face the consequences of criminal investigation, I am of the view that further continuation of the investigation in connection with Balurghat P.S. Case No. 103 of 2025 dated 18.02.2025 is

unwarranted.

Accordingly, all further proceedings of the aforesaid case being Balurghat P.S.

Case No. 103 of 2025 dated 18.02.2025 corresponding to GR Case No. 350 of 2025 is hereby quashed.

With the aforesaid observations, WPA 6570 of 2025 is Allowed.

Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of.

Case Diary be returned to the learned advocate for the State.

Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)