17.09.2026 Ct. No.758 Sl. No.5 akd W. P. A. 11839 of 2023 [Mahadeb Chitrakar -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.] Mr. Debabrata Sardar … … for the petitioner Mr. Subir Kumar Bhattacharyya Mr. Abhijit Adhya … … for respondent no. 6 Ms. Sudipa Bhattacharya Ms. Megha Datta … … for the State 1. The petitioner submits that on December 8, 2015, the petitioner’s son, aged about one year and six months, went missing from the family home while the petitioner was away and his wife was occupied with the household work. After the child went missing and on unsuccessful searches, the parents lodged a complaint with the local police station naming the private respondents as the suspects. The complaint led to registration of Uluberia Police Station Case No. 898 of 2015 for investigation on the offences punishable under Sections 363/365/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were arrested and produced before the court of Magistrate on December 9, 2015. On December 11, 2015, the child’s decomposed body was recovered. On December 15, 2015, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia directed addition of charges under Section 302 IPC based on the inquest and post-mortem findings while rejecting the prayer for bail of the private respondents. 2. The investigation of the case progressed and the State, who files a report today, informs the Court that the investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet on October 31, 2016. 2 3. It is submitted by the petitioner that in view of the delay in submission of the charge sheet, the private respondents got statutory bail in the matter. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner lodged a complaint on April 20, 2023 before the CBI, Kolkata Zone and CID, Homicide Department reiterating his grievance regarding improper investigation into the case and flagging that the exclusion of one Samir De and non-apprehension of Tapasi Mukherjee indicates that the police has not been investigating the case properly. Being dissatisfied with the investigation, the petitioner seeks that the investigation of the case be transferred to the CBI and this Court should monitor such investigation. 5. This Court has considered the submissions of the petitioner and has perused the report filed by the State today. It appears from the records that after completion of investigation, the police has submitted a charge sheet bearing No. 649 of 2016 on October 31, 2016 under Sections 302/120B/363 IPC. It is further informed to the Court that the charges have been framed and the case is now awaiting trial. 6. It is settled law that the submission of a charge-sheet by the police after the conclusion of an investigation does not, by itself, extinguish the jurisdiction of a constitutional court to direct further investigation by an independent agency. Such power, however, must be exercised cautiously and only when there are sufficient materials on record to disclose extraordinary circumstances. 7. In the present case, apart from the allegation that one person was not charge-sheeted and the failure of the I.O. to arrest the other person, no material has been placed on record to show that the investigation of the case was biased, that any 3 material evidence was deliberately suppressed, or that the investigation was not fair. The petitioner approached the CID and CBI after six years. 8. In these circumstances, the Court does not find any exceptional grounds necessitating the transfer of the investigation. Such prayer is, therefore, declined. 9. This Court however, directs that the refusal of the prayer of the petitioner to have the case transferred to another Investigating Agency does not mean that this Court has rejected the contentions of the petitioner with regard to the nature of investigation. This Court also does not express any opinion on the allegations made by the petitioner regarding the Investigating Agency being biased. 10. The petitioner shall be at liberty to place such materials or make such other arguments before the Trial Court as the petitioner is otherwise entitled to in law. 11. The petitioner had the liberty to approach the court of the learned Magistrate at the time when the charge sheet was submitted. The petitioner shall be at liberty to agitate his grievances before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. At this belated stage and particularly in view of the fact that the trial of the case has commenced, the prayer made in the writ petition is not considered. 12. With the above observations, WPA 11839 of 2023 is disposed of. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. All parties are to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Anuj Singh, J.) 4