20. 20. 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. 16098 OF 2026 ASHIM KRISHNA BHATTA VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS …………… Mr. Pradip Kumar Roy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sumedha Mukhopadhyay, Adv. Ms. Shruti Mitra, Adv. Ms. Soumita Chakraborty, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mr. Partha Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Rahul Agarwala, Adv. …For the State Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Akashdeep Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Badrul Karim, Adv. Mr. Kiron Sk., Adv. Mr. Tirupati Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Sayed Hossain, Adv. Mr. Jamiruddin Sk., Adv. …For the Respondent Nos.2, 4 & 7 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition, inter alia, praying for quashment of criminal prosecution being Murshidabad P.S. Case No.440 of 2026 dated 17th May, 2026. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though a complaint was lodged on 16th May, 2026 by the respondent no.7 on behalf of Ayeshbagh Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. (Mini Bank) but the allegations made therein do not call for initiation of aforesaid criminal prosecution. 4. Prayer is made on behalf of the petitioner for passing an interim order thereby restraining the concerned [2] police authorities from taking any coercive step against the petitioner. 5. State respondents and respondent nos.2, 4 and 7 are represented by learned advocates. 6. Learned advocate representing the respondent no.7 being the defacto complainant submits that there is suppression of material fact in the present writ petition as petitioner had filed a pre-arrest bail application being CRM (A) 1718 of 2026 and same is pending before a co-ordinate Bench. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent no.7 that though loan was obtained by the petitioner but same was not returned and based on certain inputs complaint was lodged on 16th May, 2026 before the concerned police authority which gave rise to the aforesaid criminal prosecution. 7. Learned advocate representing the State respondents submits that investigation is going on and same is at the nascent stage. 8. Having considered respective submissions made on behalf of the parties, it is inferred that this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not make an exercise to find out veracity of the allegations when facts are hazy. It is the responsibility of investigating agency to investigate the matter and file report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India needs to be exercised sparingly while considering writ petition seeking quashment of criminal prosecution. It is not a routine procedure. [3] 9. In this regard, reliance is placed on paragraph 33.16 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 (Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and Others). Paragraph 33.16 runs infra:- “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 CrPC 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 CrPC 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/ charge-sheet is filed under Section 173 CrPC, while dismissing/ disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC and/ or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 10. Before parting with this Court cannot brush aside the fact that petitioner has availed of alternative remedy contemplated under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 and an application being CRM (A) 1718 of 2026 was filed [4] before a co-ordinate Bench seeking pre-arrest bail. Filing of this application is not disclosed in this writ petition. 11. In aforesaid conspectus, writ petition is not interfered with and same stands dismissed. 12. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to press pre-arrest bail application. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for be given to the parties upon usual undertakings. (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)