Calcutta High Court
MAT/1629/2026 of TASLIMA KHATUN Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 29 September 2026
Item No.29 Ct. No. 1 RP IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE MAT/1629/2026 TASLIMA KHATUN ]… Appellant VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. ]… Respondents Appearance : Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Badrul Karim Mr. Tirupati
ORDER SHEET
WBCHCA0499182026
Item No.29
Ct. No. 1
RP
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
MAT/1629/2026
TASLIMA KHATUN
]… Appellant
VS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
]… Respondents
Appearance :
Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Badrul Karim
Mr. Tirupati Mukherjee
Mr. Kiron Sk.
Mr. Rishabh Ahmad Khan
]… Advocate for Appellant
CORAM: RAVINDRA VITHALRAO GHUGE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
OM NARAYAN RAI J.
Date :29.09.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
(Per Court)
1. We have heard the Learned Advocate for the Appellant and have considered all twenty-three grounds set out in the pleadings. In the light of the same we perused the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 10.09.2026, passed in WPA No.20823 of 2026.
2. We do not find that the Learned Single Judge has committed any error in directing the parties to approach the appropriate authority for police protection or under Section 175(3) of BNSS 2023, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2026 SCC Online 798 (Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.).
3. In view of the above, this Appeal is dismissed.
4. Learned Advocate for the Appellant submits at this juncture that the Appellant would approach the District Superintendent of Police or the Committee constituted for the purpose of assessing the threat perception to an Applicant, who requests for police protection.
5. Since the Appellant desires to make such an application, we would not express any view. Let the Competent Authority deal with the same on its own merits. (OM NARAYAN RAI , J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) Chief Justice