11 03.07.2026 Court No.05 pg. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 14305 of 2026 The Duke Club & Anr. -versus State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Swapan Banerjee Mr. Kunal Ganguly Mr. Kaustav Banerjee … For the petitioners Mr. D.N. Ray, Ld. GP Mr. Suryaneel Das, Ld. AGP Ms. Suchitra Sinha Chatterjee Mr. Bhaskar Bhattacharya … For the State Mr. Rahul Karmakar Mr. Nirmalya Dutta Mr. Soumyojit Saha … For the respondent no.5 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of petitioners is taken on record. 2. On behalf of petitioners, it is submitted that in running the administration of The Duke Club, Hooghly, petitioners faced difficulty and to that extent a complaint was lodged on 8th June, 2026 before concerned police authorities. There are other complaints lodged by petitioners alleging similar incidents. Petitioners pray for direction upon concerned police authorities which would permit petitioners to run the club peacefully. 3. Mr. Karmakar, learned advocate representing respondent no.5 submits that a suit, being 2 Title Suit No.281 of 2025, is pending before the civil court filed by respondent no.5. It is also contended that petitioners are defendants in the said suit. It is further submitted that in the body of petition, pendency of aforesaid suit is not disclosed. It is also contended on behalf of respondent no.5 that restraint order was passed on the said suit thereby prohibiting alienation of the suit property to third party. 4. Mr. Das, learned Additional Government Pleader representing State respondents has filed a communication dated 1st July, 2026 of Inspector-in- Charge of Chinsurah Police Station and same is taken on record. It is disclosed in the said communication dated 1st July, 2026 that based on complaint of petitioners, a criminal prosecution was initiated, being Chinsurah Police Station Case No.197 of 2021 dated 4th May, 2021 under certain provisions of Indian Penal Code and a charge sheet was filed on 29th July, 2021. 5. Having considered respective submissions made on behalf of parties and taking note of the contents of the communication dated 1st July, 2026, it appears that criminal prosecution, which was initiated based on previous complaint of petitioners, has already been culminated into filing of charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate. This Court presumes by this time cognizance of offence must have been taken by the jurisdictional Magistrate. After filing of charge sheet and cognizance having been taken by the jurisdictional 3 Magistrate, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning steps taken by concerned police authorities in course of investigation is not maintainable as it is decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeta Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 5761. 6. However, on behalf of petitioners, it is submitted that there are instances of disputes at the instance of dissident group of the said club and to that extent complaints were lodged with the concerned police station. 7. Taking note of the complaints lodged by petitioners, concerned police authorities are directed to maintain peace and tranquility and to see no untoward incident takes place. 8. However, if any right of petitioners is impinged upon which comes under the fold of aforesaid pending suit, petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the civil court. 9. Writ petition stands disposed of. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)