Calcutta High Court Declines Relief To Abhishek Banerjee Against Magistrate's Order For Recording Voice Sample In 'DJ Remark' Case

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a criminal revision filed by Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee challenging a trial court's order directing the collection of his voice sample in connection with the CID's investigation into his alleged "DJ remark."

Holding that the issue arose from the same FIR which is already pending before a coordinate bench in a writ petition, the Court observed that entertaining the revision could result in conflicting judicial orders and directed that the matter be placed before the bench already seized of the dispute.

During the hearing, Banerjee's counsel argued that the magistrate's order directing collection of the voice sample was "perverse" and contrary to Section 349 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Referring to the statutory provision, counsel submitted that while a magistrate may direct collection of a voice sample, such an order cannot ordinarily be passed unless the person has been arrested in connection with the offence. In cases where the person has not been arrested, the magistrate is required to record reasons demonstrating satisfaction before issuing such a direction, it was argued.

"The order for recording voice sample is perverse... It doesn't satisfy Section 349 BNSS," counsel contended, adding that the magistrate had failed to record any reasons while allowing the investigating agency's application.

Banerjee's counsel further argued that the High Court had already granted interim protection against coercive action till July 31 in the connected writ proceedings, but the investigating agency did not disclose that protection while seeking the magistrate's order.

Questioning the necessity of obtaining a fresh voice sample, counsel submitted, "When I don't dispute my voice, what is the necessity of taking a sample?"

The State opposed the plea, with the Additional Advocate General submitting that the challenge was an attempt to avoid cooperation with the investigation.

The Court repeatedly questioned why Banerjee had not approached the bench already hearing the writ petition arising out of the same FIR.

"Why can't you go there?" the Court asked, observing that judicial propriety required the connected issues to be heard by the same bench.

The Court remarked:

"Propriety requires that it be heard by the same court. There's a possibility of conflicting orders being passed."

When the petitioner sought interim protection against consequences of non-compliance with the magistrate's order, the Court declined to grant any stay, observing that the writ court had already protected him against coercive action.

The Court also made it clear that so long as the investigation remained alive, it could not interfere merely because the petitioner challenged a step taken during investigation.

"Unless investigation is quashed I cannot do anything," the Court observed.

Dictating its order, the Court noted that a coordinate bench had already directed that no coercive steps be taken against Banerjee till July 31 and had also permitted the State to seek appropriate orders if he failed to cooperate with the investigation.

Since the present revision arose out of the same FIR and the principal issue regarding the maintainability of the FIR and investigation was already pending before the coordinate bench, the Court held that it would be "fit and proper" for the same bench to consider the challenge to the magistrate's order as well.

Accordingly, the Court directed that the revision application be taken out of its list and placed before the appropriate coordinate bench already hearing the connected writ proceedings.

Case No: CRR/2583/2026

Case: ABHISHEK BANERJEE VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR