28.07.2026 Item No.23 Ct. No. 5 RP WPA/16956/2026 SAFIKUL DOFADAR @ DAFADAR VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Mr. Kausik Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nilay Baran Mandal Mr. Sumalya Chakraborty …For Petitioner Mr. Partha Chakrabarty Ms. Sumita Sarkar …For State 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. By presenting this writ petition, inter alia, the writ petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR, being Bashirhat Police Station Case No.557 of 2026 dated 3rd July, 2026. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the alleged incidents as narrated in the complaint dated 7th June, 2026 relates back to 2023 during Panchayat election whereas the complaint was lodged on 7th June, 2026. According to the petitioner, delay is fatal so far as initiation of aforesaid criminal proceeding is concerned, which may be taken into consideration 2 while delving into the prayers made in this writ petition seeking quashment of criminal prosecution. In support of such contention reliance is also placed on the order dated 21st May 2026 passed by this Court on another writ petition, being WPA 11675 of 2026 (Paresh Ram Das vs. The State of West Bengal & Others.) 3. Learned advocate representing the State respondents has opposed this writ petition. It is also contended that apart from aforesaid criminal prosecution another criminal prosecution is pending implicating the petitioner herein, being Basirhat Police Station Case No.436 of 2026 dated 2nd June, 2026 under certain provisions of Indian Penal Code. 4. On perusal of complaint dated 7th June, 2026 in connection with Basirhat Police Station Case No.557 of 2026 it appears that there are allegations implicating 3 the present petitioner relating to certain incidents which took place during Panchayat election 2023. Investigation is at nascent stage. When facts are hazy and all materials are not before this Court, it would be inappropriate to make an exercise in order to find out nature of allegations made against the petitioner and whether such allegations are correct or not. Investigating agency is required to be permitted to conclude investigation in accordance with law. 5. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 (Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.). 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 4 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 5 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 6. Writ Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India considering a petition seeking quashment of criminal prosecution needs to exercise such power with circumspection and sparingly. It is not a routine procedure that on an application seeking quashment of criminal prosecution same shall be dealt with mechanically thereby directing the concerned police authority not to take coercive steps specially when more than one criminal prosecutions are pending against the petitioner and there are other accused persons. 7. Petitioner has alternative remedy under Section 482 of BNSS 2023 seeking pre- arrest bail before an appropriate forum. 8. In Paresh Ram Das (supra) order was passed by this Court granting interim 6 protection taking note of the special facts narrated in paragraph 11 of the said order dated 21st May, 2026. 9. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with this writ petition and same stands dismissed. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in pursuit of remedy. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)