MURSHID ALAM MIAH @ MURSID ALOM MIAH ANIRABN BANERJEE vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL — CRR/563/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 25th March 2026.
CNR: WBCHCJ0058032025
Next Hearing
17th December 2025
Filing Number
CRR /563/2025
Filing Date
03-12-2025
Registration No
CRR /563/2025
Registration Date
03-12-2025
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP C (CRIMINAL MATTERS) ( 3 )
Sub-Category
Quashing of Proceedings ( 75 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL SECTION
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MURSHID ALAM MIAH @ MURSID ALOM MIAH ANIRABN BANERJEE
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA
CRIMINAL REVISION
CRIMINAL MOTION
CRIMINAL MOTION
CONTESTED APPLICATION(CRIMINAL)
CRIMINAL MOTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-12-2025 | CRIMINAL REVISION | |
| 24-03-2026 | CRIMINAL MOTION | |
| 23-03-2026 | CRIMINAL MOTION | |
| 17-02-2026 | CONTESTED APPLICATION(CRIMINAL) | |
| 16-01-2026 | CRIMINAL MOTION |
Orders
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to an arrest warrant issued in an NDPS case, holding that there are no "magic words" required for taking cognizance—the magistrate's consideration of the chargesheet and case records suffices. The court rejected the argument that mixing typed and handwritten text in the cognizance order invalidated subsequent proceedings, finding instead that it demonstrated application of mind, and noted the petitioner's unexplained delay in filing the challenge without seeking condonation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to an arrest warrant issued in an NDPS case, holding that there are no "magic words" required for taking cognizance—the magistrate's consideration of the chargesheet and case records suffices. The court rejected the argument that mixing typed and handwritten text in the cognizance order invalidated subsequent proceedings, finding instead that it demonstrated application of mind, and noted the petitioner's unexplained delay in filing the challenge without seeking condonation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts