14.07.2026 Sl. No. 25 Ct No. 5 SG WPA 15241 of 2026 Waahiid Ali Khan Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Ms. Puja Rajbhor. …for the petitioner Mr. Anirban Das, Ms. S. Roy. …for the State Ms. Aishwarya Roy, Mr. Samrat Saha. …for respondent no. 4 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that by instituting this writ petition, inter alia, prayer is made for issuing mandamus thereby directing the concerned respondent authorities to quash criminal prosecution being Watgunge Women Police Station Case No. 04 of 2026 dated 6th June, 2026 registered under Section 85/74/316(2)/89/3(5) of BNS, 2023 read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is submitted fastening of Section 89 of BNS, 2023 prevents the petitioner from getting the benefit under Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023. 3. State respondents and respondent no. 4 are represented by learned advocates. 2 4. As it is found from the submissions made on behalf of the parties that based on the complaint lodged aforesaid criminal prosecution is initiated by registering FIR on 6th June, 2026 and investigation is at the nascent stage. Therefore, Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation which is being carried out by the concerned police authorities. Moreover, prayer is made for quashing of the criminal prosecution which is not found to be tenable in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 33.16 of the judgment reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 (M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.). Paragraph 33.16 is quoted below:- “33.16. The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 5. It is trite that High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought to exercise its power of quashing criminal 3 prosecution with circumspection and sparingly and not in routine manner. When an FIR has been registered and an investigation is continuing at this stage Court finds it not apt to make any observation with regard to veracity of the allegations of commission of offence. 6. Hence, Court is not inclined to interfere with this writ petition and same stands dismissed. 7. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum seeking pre arrest bail. 8. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)