84 Ranajit (AR.CT) 30.07.2026 Ct.05 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. NO 11891 OF 2026 MB Unit of Socio Equality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. -vs- State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Anindya Sundar Das, Mr. Shaunak Ghosh, Ms. Paramita Mondal, Ms. Suva Gayen, Mr. Suman Halder, Ms. Rebika Sultana, Ms. Madhurima Dutta, Ms. Susmita Das, Mr. Subrata Bairagya, Mr. Anuvab Das, Ms. Shabnam Yeasmin ….for the petitioners. Mr. Suryaneel Das, Mr. Partha Chakraborty Ms. Sumita Sarkar ….for the State. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record. 2. From the case made out in this writ petition, it appears that petitioner is business correspondent under State Bank of India. There are Sub-agents/Customer Service Point functioning under the petitioner who collected money from villagers but did not invest the said money in the bank. 3. Alleging such incident, petitioners lodged complaint with the concerned police authorities that gave rise to a criminal prosecution being Rahara Police Station Case No.9/2026 dated 4th January, 2026. 4. However, dissatisfaction is expressed on behalf of the petitioner with regard to progress made in the investigation which prompts petitioner to approach this Court with the present writ petition seeking direction upon the police authorities to expedite the investigation . 5. Prayer is made for recovery of the sum which is allegedly not invested by Sub-agents/Customer Service Point functioning under the petitioners. 6. If petitioner is aggrieved by inaction on the part of the concerned police authorities in not taking the investigation to its logical conclusion or petitioner has grievance that police authority has not recovered the sum involved in the case, in that event petitioners need to approach jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023. 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 & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 8. It is succinctly decided in paragraph 7 of Sujal Vishwas Attavar (supra) 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 needs to approach under the statutory framework unless of course urgency of the circumstances warrant otherwise. 9. In view of availability of alternative remedy, present 2 writ petition is not entertained and same stands dismissed. 10. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to approach appropriate forum in pursuit of remedy. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 3