Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 35528 (CAL)

GANESH MAJI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/14225/2026 · 2026-08-24

Saugata Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

24.08.2026 165 Court No. 05 (DL) (Suvendu Mukherjee) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (APPELLATE SIDE) WPA 14225 of 2026 Ganesh Maji –Versus – The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Prabir Kumar Mitra Ms. Ankita Dutta Ms. Sudarshana Srivastava …for the petitioner Mr. Suryaneel Das, Ld. AGP Ms. Anita Kundu Mr. Bhaskar Bhattacharyya …..for the State respondents Mr. Sounak Bhattacharyya Mr. Sutosom Bhattacharyya Mr. Abhijit Maji ….for the respondent nos. 4-7 1) Matter is taken up for consideration when learned advocate representing petitioner prays for direction upon concerned police authorities to register FIR based on representation dated 18th May, 2026 addressed to Officer-in-Charge, Tamluk Police Station. In addition thereto, it is submitted that petitioner was dispossessed of land in question and prayer is made for restoration of possession. 2) State respondents and respondent nos. 4-7 are represented by learned advocates who have submitted that issue involved in this writ petition is civil in nature requiring petitioner to approach appropriate forum. 3) It is submitted on behalf of State respondents that representation dated 18th May, 2026 based on which 2 prayer is made for registration of FIR, was made by learned advocate for the petitioner. 4) Having considered respective submissions made on behalf of the parties, it appears that petitioner prays for registration of FIR based on representation dated 18th May, 2026. 5) In view of availability of alternative remedy under section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 petitioner can approach the jurisdictional Magistrate, in the event FIR is not registered or there is inaction on the part of the concerned police authorities. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171 (Aleque Padamsee and Others Vs. Union of India & Others). 6) Hence, writ petition is not entertained and same stands dismissed. 7) However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to approach jurisdictional Magistrate in pursuit of remedy. 8) Since prayer is also made for restoration of possession, petitioner needs to approach civil court in pursuit of such remedy. 9) All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)