27.08.2026 Court No.42 Sl. No.29 sg CRR 1604 of 2024 In the matter of: Atul Saha …Petitioner. Mr. Amal Kumar Saha Ms. Iresh Paul …for the petitioner. Mr. Raju Mondal …for the opposite party. Mr. Amarta Ghose Mr. Arijit Bhusun Bagchi …for the State. 1. The affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is kept on record. 2. The memo of evidence filed by the learned advocate appearing for the State is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Bolpur Police Station Case No. 101 of 2023 dated 22nd March, 2023, under Sections 323, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was initiated against opposite parties no. 2 to 5. However, upon completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet restricting the penal sections to Sections 341, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, while omitting the provisions of the SC & ST (POA) Act. 2 4. Being aggrieved by the exclusion of the special statute sections, the petitioner moved an application before the learned Trial Court seeking a direction for further investigation. The said prayer was considered and rejected by the learned Trial Court upon assigning proper and cogent reasons, and that order forms the subject matter of challenge in the instant revisional application. 5. On a close and careful appreciation of the impugned order, I find that the learned Trial Court aptly observed: “So from the four corners of the materials on record, I do not find any gross violation or illegality in conducting the investigation on the part of the I.O. and to submit a charge sheet under the provision of I.P.C. and not any provision of SC & ST (POA) Act. Not only that if the Court at the time of trial finds any prima facie case appears in the evidence punishable under the provision of SC & ST (POA) Act, the Court may add that section at any time by altering the charge and in that way also the defacto complainant would not prejudice anyhow. Thus, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion and findings therein, I am of the considered opinion that the prayer for further investigation is not required and is not at all maintainable in the fact situation of this case and accordingly the same is liable to be rejected.” 6. Concurring with the sound approach adopted by the Trial Court, I find no patent irregularity, impropriety, or abuse of 3 the process of the court in the impugned order. The learned Trial Court has rightly noted that the petitioner is not left remediless; ample statutory safeguards remain available to urge for the alteration or addition of charges before the Trial Court when the evidence so warrants during trial. Consequently, the interest of the petitioner is in no manner prejudiced, as effective alternative legal remedies are inherently built into the criminal trial framework. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this application. The instant criminal revisional application stands dismissed. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 10. The learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in the instant case diligently and expeditiously. 11. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of the Calcutta High Court. ( Uday Kumar, J.)