Introduction:
The Calcutta High Court has reiterated the importance of judicial discipline and consistency by declining to entertain a criminal revision petition challenging an order directing the collection of a voice sample during the course of a criminal investigation. The case, Abhishek Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and Another (CRR/2583/2026), arose from the CID’s investigation into the alleged “DJ remark” made by Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee. Instead of examining the merits of the challenge, the Court held that the dispute stemmed from the same First Information Report (FIR) which was already under consideration before a coordinate bench in connected writ proceedings. Consequently, the Court observed that entertaining the revision separately could result in conflicting judicial decisions and would be contrary to the principles of judicial propriety.
The controversy originated after the investigating agency sought permission from the jurisdictional magistrate to obtain Banerjee’s voice sample as part of its investigation. The magistrate allowed the request, prompting Banerjee to approach the High Court by filing a criminal revision. He contended that the order was contrary to Section 349 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and that the statutory safeguards governing the collection of voice samples had not been followed. At the same time, a writ petition challenging the very FIR and the investigation was already pending before another bench of the High Court, which had granted interim protection against coercive action until July 31 while permitting the investigation to continue.
The principal issue before the Court, therefore, was not merely whether the magistrate’s order directing collection of the voice sample was legally sustainable, but whether such a challenge should be independently entertained when the larger dispute concerning the same FIR was already pending before another coordinate bench.
Arguments of the Parties:
On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that the magistrate’s order directing the collection of a voice sample was legally unsustainable and suffered from serious procedural irregularities. Referring to Section 349 of the BNSS, counsel submitted that although the law empowers a magistrate to direct a person to provide a voice sample, such power is not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with the statutory safeguards. It was argued that where the person concerned has not been arrested, the magistrate is required to record specific reasons demonstrating satisfaction as to the necessity of issuing such a direction. According to the petitioner, the impugned order contained no such reasons and therefore failed to satisfy the requirements of the law.
The petitioner further submitted that the High Court had already granted interim protection against coercive action in the connected writ proceedings arising out of the same FIR. Despite this protection, the investigating agency allegedly failed to disclose the existence of the interim order while seeking permission from the magistrate to obtain the voice sample. It was argued that this omission materially affected the proceedings before the magistrate and reflected a lack of fairness on the part of the investigating agency.
Another significant submission made by the petitioner was that there was no genuine necessity to obtain a fresh voice sample because he had never disputed that the voice in question belonged to him. Counsel argued that where identity of the voice is not in dispute, compelling a person to provide another sample serves no meaningful investigative purpose. It was therefore contended that the order directing collection of the sample was unnecessary, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
The petitioner also sought interim protection against any adverse consequences arising from non-compliance with the magistrate’s order pending disposal of the revision petition.
The State of West Bengal strongly opposed the revision petition. The Additional Advocate General argued that the application was nothing more than an attempt to avoid cooperating with an ongoing criminal investigation. According to the State, the investigating agency was legally entitled to collect evidence necessary for conducting a fair and effective investigation, including obtaining a voice sample wherever required.
The State further submitted that the challenge ought not to be entertained by another bench because all issues arising from the same FIR were already pending before a coordinate bench in the connected writ proceedings. It was argued that judicial discipline required all connected issues to be considered by the same bench to avoid inconsistent findings and conflicting judicial orders. The State also pointed out that the writ court had already granted protection against coercive action while simultaneously allowing the investigation to continue, thereby adequately safeguarding the petitioner’s rights.
Court’s Judgment:
The Calcutta High Court declined to entertain the criminal revision and held that judicial propriety demanded that all issues arising from the same FIR be considered by the coordinate bench already seized of the connected writ petition. The Court repeatedly questioned why the petitioner had not approached the same bench which was already hearing the principal challenge relating to the FIR and investigation. It observed that entertaining the revision separately carried a real possibility of conflicting judicial orders and would undermine consistency in judicial decision-making.
The Court emphasized that where connected proceedings arise from the same criminal case, the interests of justice are best served by allowing a single bench to examine all related issues. Such an approach promotes judicial discipline, avoids contradictory findings and ensures coherent adjudication of disputes arising from the same factual matrix.
While the petitioner sought interim protection against the consequences of not complying with the magistrate’s order, the Court declined to grant any stay. It noted that the coordinate bench had already protected the petitioner from coercive action until July 31. The Court also observed that the earlier bench had expressly permitted the State to seek appropriate directions if the petitioner failed to cooperate with the investigation. In these circumstances, granting any further interim relief was considered unnecessary.
The Court further clarified that so long as the investigation remained legally valid and had not been quashed, it could not ordinarily interfere with every investigative step merely because the person under investigation questioned its legality. The Court remarked that unless the investigation itself was set aside, it was not appropriate for another bench to interfere with individual orders passed during its course, especially when the larger challenge remained pending before a coordinate bench.
Although the petitioner had raised substantial questions regarding the interpretation of Section 349 of the BNSS and the conditions governing collection of voice samples, the Court consciously refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of those submissions. Instead, it held that those questions should appropriately be considered by the bench already dealing with the connected writ petition so that all legal and factual issues arising out of the same FIR could be decided together.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the criminal revision application be removed from its own list and placed before the appropriate coordinate bench already hearing the connected proceedings. By adopting this course, the Court preserved judicial consistency without prejudging the legality of the magistrate’s order or the petitioner’s objections under the BNSS.
The order is significant because it underscores that principles of judicial propriety and orderly administration of justice are integral to the functioning of constitutional courts. Even where important questions regarding investigative powers and statutory safeguards arise, the Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if parallel proceedings involving the same dispute are already pending before another coordinate bench. The decision therefore reinforces that consistency in judicial decision-making is essential to maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice, while leaving the substantive issues concerning the collection of the voice sample to be decided in the pending writ proceedings.