05.08.2026 Item no. 14 Ct. No.237 AKG C.R.R. 2509 of 2026 With CRAN 1 of 2026 Subhankar Mitra Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury, Mr. Suvradal Chowdhury, Mr. Abhrajit Chowdhury ……for the Petitioner Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. P. P. Mr. Subir Ganguly, Mr. Sandeep Prasad Shaw …for the State Mr. Pinak Kumar Mitra, Ms. Sudarshana Srivastava …for O.P. No. 2 Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya …for O.P. No. 3 Mr. Soumya Nag, Ms. Ankita Dutta …for O.P. Nos. 6-9 In Re: CRAN 1 of 2026 This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring the revisional application. There is a delay of 677 days in filing the revision. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was unaware of the order dated August 13, 2024, whereby the learned Magistrate accepted the closure report submitted by the investigating agency. According to the petitioner, he came to know of the said order only in the month of April, 2026 and thereafter acted with due diligence in filing the present 2 revisional application. The petitioner is the de facto complainant in the case. The application is contested by the opposite parties by filing affidavits-in-opposition. It is contended on behalf of the opposite parties that the petitioner had knowledge of the closure report filed by the investigating agency. It is submitted that during the hearing of WPA 23674 of 2023, the State filed a report before the learned Single Judge indicating that the investigating agency had submitted a closure report. According to the opposite parties, the said report was circulated amongst all the parties to the writ petition, including the present petitioner. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner had prior knowledge of the filing of the closure report. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, however, disputes the said contention and submits that the report filed by the State was never served upon the petitioner. I have considered the rival submissions. The order dated December 18, 2023 passed in WPA 23674 of 2023 does not record that the report filed by the State was directed to be circulated amongst the parties. Nor is there any material on record to establish that a copy of the report was, in fact, served upon the petitioner. Once the opposite parties assert that the petitioner had knowledge of the closure report on the basis of such report allegedly served upon him, the burden lay upon them to establish 3 service thereof. As noticed above, no material has been placed on record to substantiate such assertion. In the absence of any cogent material demonstrating that the petitioner had prior knowledge of the order accepting the closure report, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of the delay. Accordingly, CRAN 1 of 2026 stands allowed. In Re: C.R.R. 2509 of 2026 The petitioner challenges the order dated August 13, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah, in G.R. Case No. 3110 of 2022 arising out of Beliaghata Police Station Case No. 157 of 2022 dated December 11, 2022, whereby the learned Magistrate accepted the closure report submitted by the investigating agency. It appears that on December 11, 2022, the petitioner, being the de facto complainant, lodged a written complaint before Beliaghata Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on the very same day the opposite parties had unlawfully trespassed into his property and had forcibly dispossessed the petitioner's agent from the Debottar property situated at 146, Rajendra Lal Mitra Road, P.S. Beliaghata, Kolkata – 700010. On the basis of the said complaint, Beliaghata Police Station Case No. 157 of 2022 was registered under Sections 448/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4 Upon completion of the investigation, the investigating officer submitted a closure report before the learned Magistrate on October 31, 2023. The matter was thereafter taken up for consideration on February 1, 2024. The learned Magistrate recorded that notice issued to the de facto complainant had been returned by the Officer-in-Charge, Beliaghata Police Station with an endorsement of due service. As the de facto complainant did not appear despite such service and no steps were taken on his behalf, the matter was adjourned. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated August 13, 2024, the learned Magistrate accepted the closure report upon recording that the de facto complainant remained absent. Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that during the relevant period the petitioner was residing in the United States of America. Therefore, it is highly improbable that the petitioner could have been personally served with the notice, as recorded by the learned Magistrate. It is further submitted that the investigating officer was fully aware that the petitioner was residing in the United States. This is evident from the fact that a notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had earlier been issued to the petitioner through electronic mail. It is, therefore, contended that the investigating agency was fully aware of the petitioner's overseas residence. 5 Learned counsel further submits that the investigation was conducted in a perfunctory and casual manner. Although the First Information Report related to an incident alleged to have occurred on December 11, 2022, the closure report itself reveals that the investigating officer conducted investigation proceeding on the basis that the alleged incident took place on April 29, 2023. On the aforesaid grounds, it is urged that the impugned order dated August 13, 2024 deserves to be set aside. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. None of the opposite parties has been able to specifically dispute the petitioner's contention that, at the relevant point of time, he was residing in the United States of America. In such circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to accept that the notice was duly served upon the petitioner before the learned Magistrate proceeded to accept the closure report. The de facto complainant is entitled to an effective opportunity of hearing before a closure report is accepted. In the facts of the present case, such opportunity cannot be said to have been afforded to the petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated August 13, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah, is set aside. The learned Magistrate shall reconsider the closure report afresh after giving the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing. 6 The petitioner shall be at liberty to file a protest petition before the learned Magistrate within two weeks from date. In the event such protest petition is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, independently and without being influenced by any observation made in this order. Accordingly, CRR 2509 of 2026 stands allowed. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Kausik Chanda, J.)