Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 41668 (CAL)

SK. FARUK v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/22810/2026 · 2026-09-18

Saugata Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

13 Ranajit (AR.CT) 18.09.2026 Ct.05 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. NO 22810 OF 2026 Sk. Faruk -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. S. R. Das, Mr. S. Rakshit ….for the petitioner. Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Mr. Aditya Mondal ….for the State. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. Learned advocate representing petitioner submits that a notice under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was issued on 1st March, 2026 by Circle Police Inspector, Indi Rural Police Station, Vijayapur District, Karnataka which may be interdicted and protect petitioner thereby directing concerned police authorities not to take coercive steps. 3. At the threshold, Mr. Mazumder, learned Additional Advocate General representing State respondents has taken preliminary point of maintainability of this writ petition since investigating authority is stationed outside the State of West Bengal. 4. On perusal of impugned notice under Section 35(3) BNSS 2023 dated 1st March, 2026 it appears that it was issued by an authority stationed outside the State of West Bengal. It further appears from said notice dated 1st March, 2026 that criminal prosecution being FIR/Case No 198/2025 dated 21st August, 2025 under certain provisions of BNS 2023 was initiated by concerned authority of Indi Rural Police Station, Vijayapur District, Karnataka. 5. Therefore, this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition since concerned police authorities of Karnataka initiated aforesaid criminal prosecution and in connection therewith said notice dated 1st March, 2026 was issued to petitioner. Accordingly, Court finds substance in the contention made on behalf of State respondents touching upon point of territorial jurisdiction. 6. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed. 7. However, this order shall not preclude petitioner to approach appropriate forum in pursuit of remedy. 8. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 2