Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh has dismissed two applications seeking impleadment in a writ petition that calls for investigation into allegations of police inaction and collusion in relation to a complaint made by the writ petitioner. The Court held that a complainant in a separate FIR against the writ petitioner, and persons who are only prospective accused in the petitioner’s complaint, cannot insist on being added as parties at the investigation stage. Observing that an accused has no right of audience on the manner or mode of investigation, the Court said criminal law does not contemplate participation during investigation and that the selection of the investigating agency remains within the Court’s discretion.

The writ petitioner instituted proceedings seeking investigation into a complaint lodged by him against certain private individuals and alleging complicity and bias on the part of State police officials. In the writ petition, the petitioner alleged that despite lodging a complaint, the police authorities did not act, and that a complaint subsequently registered at Bhowanipore Police Station against him was a counterblast.

Also Read: Statutory Authorities Can Intervene When Co-Operative Housing Society Delays Membership Decisions; Supreme Court

Two applications were thereafter filed seeking impleadment in the writ petition. The applicant in one application was the complainant in an FIR lodged against the petitioner, pursuant to which investigation had commenced. The applicants in the other application were persons against whom the petitioner sought investigation in his complaint. The applicants contended that in view of Sections 175(3) and 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), they were necessary and proper parties and were entitled to a right of hearing, particularly as paragraph 8 of the writ petition referred to quashing of a complaint.

The petitioner opposed the applications, submitting that no prayer for quashing of the FIR lodged against him was pressed and that Section 223(1) of the BNSS, dealing with complaints before a Magistrate, was inapplicable to the present proceedings.

The Court recorded at the outset that “In both the applications, the applicants seek to be added as parties to the writ petition and claim to be proper and necessary parties herein and also that any order passed in the writ petition shall affect their rights.”

It noted the factual position that “Anirban Dutta, the applicant in CAN 1 of 2025 lodged FIR against the petitioner pursuant to which investigation has commenced.” The Court further recorded that “In the writ petition, the petitioner has not sought quashing of the FIR and has not pressed his prayer for protecting him from any coercive step in connection with the said FIR.”

With regard to the scope of participation by an accused at the stage of investigation, the Court observed that “the accused has no right of hearing as regards the manner and method of investigation and save under certain exceptions, has no participation as a matter of right during the course of the investigation of a case instituted on a police report till the investigation culminates in filing of a final report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C.” It further recorded that “Even in a proceeding instituted otherwise than on a police report, till the process is issued under Section 204 of the Code and in cases where cognizance of an offence is taken on a complaint notwithstanding that the said offence is triable by a Magistrate or exclusively by a Court of Sessions, the accused has no right to participate till the process is issued.”

On the statutory provisions relied upon, the Court observed that “Section 175(3) does not grant an opportunity to the accused of being heard.” It also stated that “Section 223(1) deals with complaints to Magistrate and not complaint before the police officer and is not applicable in the present case.”

Regarding the applicants in CAN 2 of 2025, the Court recorded that “The applicants in CAN 2 of 2025 being the prospective accused in the complaint lodged by the petitioner are not entitled to demand a right of audience in the petition.” As to the applicant in CAN 1 of 2025, the Court stated, “However, since the petitioner does not seek quashing of the said FIR and does not intend to press his prayer in connection thereto, this applicant cannot be termed as a necessary or proper party in the writ petition.”

The Court concluded its reasoning by observing that “both the applications are devoid of any merit and are liable to be dismissed.”

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Eastern Railway’s Appeal, Upholds ₹3.56 Lakh Compensation To Family Of Railway Contractor's Worker Killed After Being Hit By Train At Worksite

The Court directed that “CAN 1 of 2025 and CAN 2 of 2025 are accordingly dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs. Let the matter appear under the heading ‘Motion’ on 26th February, 2026.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Adv.; Mr. Gourav Ghosh, Adv.; Mr. Shounak Mondal, Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. Swapan Kumar Dutta, Adv.; Mr. Rajat Kumar Dutta, Adv.; Ms. Tithi Paul, Adv.; Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Adv.; Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Adv.; Mr. Sayan Sinha, Adv.; Mr. Adil Naser, Adv.; Mr. Ranajit Chowdhury, Adv.; Ms. Sampoorna Saha, Adv.; Mr. Amajit De, Adv.

Case Title: Arnab Paul v/s. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case Number: WPA No. 28933 of 2025 with CAN No. 1 of 2025 & CAN No. 2 of 2025

Bench: Justice Suvra Ghosh