M/S Ananda Brick Field Also Known As M/S Ananda Brick Field Manufacture v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

01.10.2024 KC WPA 20743 of 2024 M/s. Annada Brick Field Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Pompey Bose Mr. Anjan Banerjee ... for the petitioner.

Mr. Koustav Bagchi ... for the respondent nos. 5, 6, 8 & 9.

Mr. Rajarshi Basu Mr. Ananda Dulal Sarkar ... for the State.

The petitioner alleges that the police authorities have not taken any steps pursuant to the complaints lodged by the petitioner on April 29, 2024 and May 8, 2024. The petitioner claims to be the proprietor of a brick field under the name and style M/s. Annada Brick Field also known as M/s. Annada Brick Field Manufacture and Supplier. The petitioner claims to be in-charge of the said business for the last 15 years. The petitioner alleges that the private respondents herein are creating obstruction and blocking the ingress and egress of the petitioner and are not allowing the petitioner to enter into the brick field. The petitioner further alleges that the private respondents are

demanding ransom from the petitioner.

Mr. Bagchi, learned advocate for the private respondent submits that the private respondents have advanced substantial sum of money to the petitioner for purchasing bricks from the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has failed and neglected to deliver brick to the private respondent even after accepting substantial sum of money. The private respondent also claims to have lodged several complaints against the petitioner.

Learned advocate for the State files a report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shyampur Police Station dated August 22, 2024, which is taken on record. It appears from the said report that pursuant to the complaint lodged by the private respondent, Shyampur Police Station Case No. 311 of 2020 dated October 22, 2022 was registered and after conclusion of investigation, Shyampur P.S. Charge-sheet No. 113 of 2022 dated March 31, 2022 under Sections 147/149/ 448/341/323/325/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been filed against the petitioner as well as against 5th respondent and others. In so far as the complaint lodged by the petitioner is concerned, the said report states that the prosecution under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. has been

submitted. The report states that the complaint of the petitioner does not disclose any cognizable offence. A copy of such report has already been served upon the learned advocate for the petitioner in course of hearing of this writ petition.

Since the police authorities have taken steps pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner, nothing further survives to be decided in this writ petition. Petitioner is at liberty to take steps in accordance with law before the Jurisdictional Court in case the petitioner is aggrieved.

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)