Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 23296 (CAL)

MOHAMMED NASIRUDDIN MOLLA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/11272/2026 · 2026-06-16

Saugata Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

18 1166..0066..22002266 Ct. No. 05 adeb WPA 11272 of 2026 Mohammed Nasiruddin Molla Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Md. Mansoor Alam Md. Asjad Mansoor ….for the petitioner Ms. Faria Hossain Ms. Suparna Chatterjee Md. Ali Ahasan ….for the private respondents Mr. Suryaneel Das Ms. Suchitra Sinha Chatterjee Ms. Sumita Sarkar …for the State 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. On perusal of prayer couched in the writ petition it appears that virtually petitioner has prayed for direction upon the concerned police authorities for registering FIR based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner. 3. Learned advocate representing State respondents has opposed this writ petition since there is an alternative remedy available under Section 175(3) BNSS, 2023. 4. Private respondents are also represented by learned advocates. 5. Under Section 175(3) BNSS 2023 there is an alternative remedy available in the event 2 complaint is not transformed into an FIR. Complainant is required to approach jurisdictional Magistrate. 6. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171 (Aleque Padamsee and Others vs. Union of India & Other). 7. Hence, writ petition is not entertained and same stands dismissed. 8. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to approach jurisdictional Magistrate in pursuit of remedy. 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)