TAPASI MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application seeking registration of an FIR. A copy of the enquiry report dtd. 19/2/2024, as filed on behalf of the State, is taken on record.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is an MLA of the opposition political party. A prima facie case of outraging modesty and wrongful restraint in the Assembly premises was made out against the staff in the complaint of the petitioner. Yet, no FIR was registered. Even during purported preliminary enquiry the petitioner was not called, but the accused was examined. This is absolutely bad in law. There is a third video which is also available and may be further looked into by the police for such purpose. However, even in the third video no offensive word could be heard though the conduct of the people present there might indicate that some offensive words might have been used.

(3.) Learned Senior Standing Counsel representing the State submits as follows. The allegations made in the writ petition are denied. The complaint did not even prima facie make out a case either of outraging modesty or of wrongful confinement. Therefore, a preliminary enquiry was conducted as there was doubt about commission of a cognizable case. Reliance is placed on Lalita Kumari, (2014) 2 SCC 1. Even the video footages provided by the petitioner were examined, but no case was made out for registering an FIR. Accordingly, a report was prepared. Although the FIR was not clearly disclosing a cognisable offence, it did indicate a necessity for an enquiry. It also referred to video footages.