Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction (Appellate Side)

Order Date: 23 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Alok Khetan (advocated by Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Mr. Arijit Dey, Ms. Oisani Mukherjee)
  • Respondents: State of West Bengal & others, including Kolkata Municipal Corporation (advocated by Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee, Mr. Utsav Dutta, etc.)
  • Revision application CRR 290 of 2023 filed under Section 482 read with Section 401 CrPC, challenging the Municipal Magistrate’s order dated 15 December 2022 which rejected the petitioner’s discharge application under Section 239 CrPC and fixed a date for framing charge.
  • Underlying criminal matter arose from Girish Park Police Station Case No. 23/2018 (registered 1 February 2018) concerning alleged unauthorized construction at premises No. 20, Baranasi Ghosh Street, Kolkata, deemed hazardous and likely to cause building collapse.
  • Charge‑sheet filed on 19 June 2018 under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
  • Petitioner argued that the property is subject to a partition decree (C.S. No. 280 of 2016) allocating portions among five companies, that he is only a director, that only minor permissible repairs were done, and that statutory notices under Sections 548, 557, 400, 401 KMC Act were never served, rendering cognizance defective.
  • Respondents contended that the charge‑sheet, police report, and witness statements (including Dhanraj Agarwal and Ravindra Kumar Karnani) directly implicate the petitioner in unauthorized hazardous construction, and that notice service is not a prerequisite for action under Section 401A where public safety is at risk.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that a prima facie case exists; the Municipal Magistrate correctly exercised jurisdiction in rejecting the discharge application.
  • Civil partition decree and alleged non‑service of notices are matters of defence to be examined at trial, not grounds to quash the proceeding at the revision stage.
  • Revision application (CRR No. 290 of 2023) dismissed.
  • The impugned order dated 15 December 2022 affirmed.
  • Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously with framing of charges and conduct the trial without granting unnecessary adjournments.
  • Interim orders, if any, vacated; no order as to costs; case diary to be returned to State counsel; certified copy of judgment to be supplied upon request.

Topics: Criminal Procedure, Municipal Law