18. 18. 22.07.2026 (D/L) (D/L) CT. NO. 05 CT. NO. 05 (ARPAN-A.R.CT.) In The High Court at Calcutta CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. 16052 OF 2026 HAFIJUR RAHAMAN MOLLA VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS …………… Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satadru Lahiri, Adv. Mr. Jyotirmoy Talukdar, Adv. Mr. Triptimoy Talukdar, Adv. Ms. Shreya Das, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Debanik Banerjee, Adv. …For the State 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner submits that appropriate investigation is not being carried out in connection with the criminal prosecution being Magrahat P.S. Case No.29 of 2026 dated 28th January, 2026 initiated under Sections 318(4)/ 336(2)/ 338/ 340(2)/ 341(1)/ 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that mandamus needs to be issued thereby directing the concerned police authority to take necessary steps for taking forward the investigation to its logical conclusion by submitting report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 4. State respondents are represented by learned advocates. [2] 5. Taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that though based on the complaint lodged aforesaid criminal prosecution was initiated but grievance of the petitioner is that commencing investigation post registration of FIR there is no progress made and concerned police authorities are required to take effective steps for concluding the investigation. 6. Having considered the grievance ventilated on behalf of the petitioner, this Court finds that petitioner needs to approach jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in the event after registration of FIR proper investigation is not being carried out. 7. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 798 (Sujal Vishwas Attavar and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others). In paragraph 7 of Sujal Vishwas Attavar (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has succinctly decided that even after registration of FIR if parties are aggrieved by in-action on the part of the concerned police authority in taking forward the investigation, in that event, party needs to approach within the statutory framework. 8. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 (Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) which was relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sujal Vishwas Attavar (supra). 9. In aforesaid conspectus, writ petition is not entertained and same stands dismissed. [3] 10. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to approach jurisdictional Magistrate in pursuit of remedy. 11. On behalf of the State respondents a communication dated 15th July, 2026 of Officer-in-Charge, Magrahat Police Station, Diamond Harbour Police District is filed and same is taken on record. Copy of the said communication dated 15th July, 2026 is made over to the learned advocate representing the petitioner. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for be given to the parties upon usual undertakings. (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)