HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WP(Crl.) No. 05 of 2024 Sri. Swapan Chandra Nag …….Petitioner(s) Vs. The State of Tripura & Ors. ……Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Mr. DC Roy, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R Datta, PP. Mr. R Saha, Adv. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA Order 06.01.2025 Heard Mr. DC Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R Datta, learned PP appearing for the respondents No.1-4. No notice has been sent to the private respondents No.5-8 yet as the case is motion stage. As agreed by both the learned counsel, the case is being disposed of at this stage without further notifying the rest respondents, as it appears that same is not required. Learned counsel Mr. Roy, submits that the petitioner lodged a FIR on 08.11.2024 to OC Belonia, PS against respondents No.5-8 with the allegation that on 08.11.2024 itself at about 8/8.30am the accused persons illegally entered into his land, cut down some bamboos and sold it to one Dulal Datta (respondent No.9) causing loss of approximate Rs.50,000/- to him. Mr. Roy, learned counsel also submits that despite the written FIR was lodged to the OC, Belonia PS, no case was registered on said FIR by the Officer-in-charge. According to learned counsel, thereafter, the petitioner approached the Superintend of Police, South Tripura, but no positive response was received from him and in view of above, ultimately the writ petition has been filed. During hearing both the learned counsel however submit that as per Sub Section 4 of Section 173 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an Officer- in-Charge of police station to record information refer to Sub Section 1 of Section 173 may send the substance of such information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police and if no positive response is attached to it by the Superintendent of Police, option is there to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate. Learned PP also refers further the provision of Section 175(3) of said Sanhita in this regard. In view of above said provisions, learned counsel Mr. Roy, submits that the writ petitioner may be disposed of giving the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate. As it appears without exhausting all the statutory remedies as available to the petitioner, he has approached this writ court. Therefore interference by the writ court at this stage may not be desirable when statutory remedy is available to the petitioner. In view of above, this writ petition is not admitted. However, it is open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy as available to him, as per law, if so desire, in case of any refusal by the Officer-in-charge to register his FIR. With such observations the writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE Satabdi SATABDI DUTTA Digitally signed by SATABDI DUTTA Date: 2025.01.07 14:45:08 +05'30'