10 Rkd 14.07.2026 Ct.05 W.P.A. 14991 of 2026 Asif Iqbal Siddique -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Gunjan Shah, Mr. Chitrabhanu Gupta, Ms. Shreya Agarwal ….for the petitioner. Mr. Shiladitya Barma, Ms. Priyanka Ghosh …for the respondent nos.4 to 11. Mr. Suryaneel Das, Ms. Anita Kundu, Ms. Sumita Sarkar ….for the State. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Learned advocate representing the petitioner prays for a direction upon the concerned police authorities for taking necessary steps in connection with criminal prosecution initiated based on the complaint lodged. 3. It is submitted that in Asansol North Police Station Case No. 363 of 2022 dated 19th August, 2022 by this time necessary steps should have been taken by the concerned police authorities but inaction on the part of the police authorities prompting petitioner to approach this Court with the present writ petition seeking necessary direction. 4. State respondents and respondent nos. 4 to 11 are represented by learned advocates who have submitted that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which corresponds to Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 by approaching jurisdictional Magistrate. 5. It is succinctly decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 798 (Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) that after registering FIR if proper investigation is not being carried out then remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking writ jurisdiction in the first instance but party has to approach under the statutory framework unless of course urgency of the circumstances warrant otherwise. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner approached jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) and several orders were passed. However, no submission is made on behalf of the petitioner raising grievance against the orders passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate in proceeding under Section 156(3) qua 175(3). 7. If petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by 2 jurisdictional Magistrate in that event petitioner is required to approach the appropriate forum by initiating proceeding in accordance with law. 8. Taking note of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, in paragraphs 11, 25, 26 and 27 as well as the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 7 of Sujal Vishwas Attavar (supra), this Court is not inclined to interfere with the writ petition by giving direction upon the concerned police authorities to take certain steps in connection with aforesaid criminal prosecution. 9. The writ petition stands dismissed. 10. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to approach appropriate forum in accordance with law. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 3