14.08.2026 07 Court No. 05 (DL) (Suvendu Mukherjee) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (APPELLATE SIDE) WPA 19437 of 2026 Suman Santra –Versus – The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Prabir Majumder Mr. Snehansu Majumder Ms. Sangeeta Chakraborty Ms. Anindita Kundu …..for the petitioner Mr. Deb Kumar Chandra ….for the State respondents Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick Mr. Manik Lal De Mr. Dwarikanath Mukherjee Mr. S.K. Das Mr. Pradip Kr. Ghosh Mr. Durlav De …..for the respondent nos. 5 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. By presenting this writ petition, dissatisfaction is expressed with regard to steps taken by the concerned police authorities while investigating criminal prosecution being Lake Town Police Station Case No. 187 of 2026 dated 26th June, 2026. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 5 is threatening the petitioner by different means requiring appropriate direction upon the 2 concerned police authorities in order to restrain respondent no.5. 3. Mr. Basu Mallick, learned advocate representing respondent no. 5 disputes submission made on behalf of the petitioner and it is submitted that respondent no. 5 is enlarged on bail. 4. State respondents are represented by learned advocate. 5. Having considered the case made out in this writ petition, it appears that criminal prosecution has commenced on registering FIR being Lake Town Police Station Case No. 187 of 2026 dated 26th June, 2026 and if petitioner has grievance with regard to manner of investigation, in that event petitioner needs to approach jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 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) it was succinctly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even after registration of FIR if investigation is not being conducted appropriately then remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking writ jurisdiction in the first instance but in seeking recourse to the statutory framework. 6. Hence, writ petition is not interfered with and same stands dismissed. 3 7. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to approach jurisdictional Magistrate in pursuit of remedy. 8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)