25.09.2026 Sl. No.468 Ct. No.237 S.A. CRR 2492 of 2026 with CRAN 1 of 2026 Iceberg Aqua Pvt. Limited & Ors. -vs- IVL Dhunseri Petrochemical Industries Private Limited Mr. Abhra Mukherjee Mr. Sauradeep Dutta Mr. Arpayan Mukherjee Mr. Himadree Ghosh …for the petitioners Mr. Apalak Basu Mr. Cedric Fernandez Mr. Shounak Mondal …for opposite party A complaint case was filed by the opposite party, which is presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas, under Sections 409/420/477A/467/ 468/469/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In connection with the said proceeding, the petitioners, who are the accused persons therein, filed two applications, one under Section 228 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the other under Section 342 of the said enactment. The learned Magistrate, however, rejected the said applications, primarily on the ground that neither application was accompanied by an affidavit or verification and that the same did not bear the signatures of the accused persons. The learned Magistrate observed that the application under Section 228 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 had been filed in a casual manner, without being supported by an affidavit or verification, and did not bear the signatures of the accused persons. While dealing with the said application, the learned 2 Magistrate was further of the view that, since the instant case is a warrant-case, the provisions of Section 228 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 would not be attracted, particularly as the accused persons had neither appeared before the learned Magistrate nor prayed for bail. Dealing with the application under Section 342 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the learned Magistrate likewise held that the said application was neither supported by an affidavit or verification nor signed by the accused persons. It was further observed that there was no resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company authorising the filing of the said application. Accordingly, by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate rejected both the applications. The learned Magistrate, however, granted liberty to the petitioners to renew their prayers after entering appearance before the Court. Mr. Abhra Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that both the applications were duly signed by the concerned persons. He, however, fairly acknowledges that neither of the applications was supported by an affidavit. He submits that the learned Magistrate was not justified in insisting upon the personal appearance of the petitioners before the Court before considering their prayer for dispensation of personal appearance. In support of his submission, Mr. Mukherjee has relied upon a judgment reported at 1989 Criminal Law Journal 523 and also upon the judgment reported at (2001) 7 SCC 401 (Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd.). 3 Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that no interference with the order of the learned Magistrate is warranted. According to him, the accused persons must first appear before the learned Magistrate and may thereafter seek dispensation of their personal appearance. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3382 of 2022 (Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal & Anr. v. Bhanuj Jindal & Anr). This Court, however, is not inclined to adjudicate upon the rival contentions on the merits at this stage. Mr. Mukherjee has submitted before this Court that the petitioners shall file fresh applications, duly supported by affidavits and signed by the petitioners/concerned persons, with an appropriate prayer for dispensation of their personal appearance. It has been submitted that the next date of hearing before the learned Magistrate has been fixed on January 27, 2027. In view of the aforesaid submission, this application is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to file such applications within a period of one month from date. Upon such applications being filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider the prayers in accordance with law. Needless to observe, the learned Magistrate shall be at liberty to decide the question of dispensation of the personal appearance of the petitioners by passing a reasoned order. With the aforesaid observation, CRR 2492 of 2026 along with CRAN 1 of 2026 is disposed of. 4 Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.)