Surabhi @ Suravi Purkait v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

D/L 58 29.07.2025 ct.no.35 Kausik W.P.A. 15811 of 2025 Surabhi @ Suravi Purkait

Versus

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das Ms. Deblina De ...for the Petitioner.

Mr. Shyama Prasad Purkait Mr. Dinesh Ch. Mondal ...for the respondent nos. 5 to 17.

Mr. Sumon Ghosh Mr. Saiful Alam Mr. Tauhid Khan ...for the State.

Petitioner is aggrieved as the Superintendent of Police, Diamond Harbour Police District did not respond to the information which was submitted on or about 27.05.2025. The substance of the accusations which was addressed to the Superintendent of Police related to incidents of 01.06.2023, 19.07.2023, 13.08.2023 and 11.10.2024.

Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the State has submitted a report. Report reflects that in respect of the incidents complained of, three police cases were registered being Diamond Harbour PS Case No. 189/2023, Diamond Harbour PS Case

No. 329/2023 and Diamond Harbour PS Case No.

443/2024. The police authorities have submitted charge sheet before the jurisdictional Court on conclusion of investigation. It is also reflected that there is counter-case at the behest of the private respondent being Diamond Harbour PS Case No.

66/2023.

Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent nos. 5 to 17 submits that the dispute is over the stretch of construction of a public road. Having regard to the number of criminal cases which are pending, I am of the view that the jurisdictional Court is already in seisin of the issue. If the petitioner faces with fresh inconveniences, petitioner would take out appropriate application before the jurisdictional Court. The jurisdictional Court would call for a threat perception report from the Officer-in-Charge/Inspector-in-Charge of Diamond Harbour Police Station. Appropriate steps be taken under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 so that the petitioner do not feel insecure to proceed with the criminal trial in respect of the three cases wherein charge sheet has been submitted before the jurisdictional Court.

So far as the contentions of the private respondents are concerned, the same are outside the

scope of adjudication. It would be for the appropriate authorities to decide the same.

With the aforesaid observations WPA 15811 of 2025 is disposed of.

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.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)