DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) Three points are raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The first point is that, Bidhannagar Police should comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2016) 9 SCC 473 (Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India and Anr.) .
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the Bidhannagar police has a website, which requires, the detail of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) lodged against an accused to be filled up for the purpose of accessing such F.I.R. He submits that, if the accused has the F.I.R. number, then the accused is in the know of the contents of the F.I.R. He submits that, the portal maintained by the Bidhannagar Police in this respect is not in consonance with the directions contained in the Youth Bar Association of India (supra). He compares the portal of Kolkata Police with that of Bidhannagar Police and submits that, Kolkata Police has a portal, which is in tune with the directions contained in Youth Bar Association of India (supra). The portal of Kolkata Police requires basic minimum information for the purpose of knowing the contents of a F.I.R. Bidhannagar Police should follow such system. If such system is followed, then an accused or in fact any member of the public can know the contents of the F.I.R. That is the spirit of the directions contained in Youth Bar Association of India (supra).
(3.) The second point canvassed by the petitioner is that, the police were overactive at the instance of the private respondent. The police had arrested the petitioner on the basis of a complaint under Section 498A by inserting Section 307 of the IPC. Subsequently, when the charge sheet was filed, Section 307 of the IPC was deleted. Investigating Officer had conducted raid at night in respect of bailable offences. The Investigating Officer had misused his official position. He submits that, the police authorities should initiate disciplinary proceeding against the Investigating Officer concerned.;