34. 34. 28.08.2026 (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. 20700 OF 2026 MOULINDU BANERJEE VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS …………… Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Dipasree Chanda, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Halder, Adv. Mr. Subhendu Bhattacharjee, Adv. Ms. Sudipa Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shreyeta Mitra, Adv. …For Petitioner Mr. Indrajit Roy Chowdhury, AGP Mr. Jaydipta Mandal, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Singh, Adv. …For State Ms. Riya Kalra, Adv. (Via VC) …For Respondent No.8 Ms. Sweta Mukherjee, Adv. …For HDFC Bank Mr. Sayak Ranjan Ganguly, Adv. Ms. Srijani Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Simrin Hussain, Adv. Ms. Pujal Musahib, Adv. …For IndusInd Bank 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. Matter is heard in presence of learned advocates representing petitioner, State respondents and other respondents. 3. By presenting this writ petition challenge is thrown to propriety of Uluberia P.S. Case No.569 of 2025 dated 20th November, 2025 registered under Sections 316(2)/ 316(5)/ 318(4)/ 319(2)/ 335/ 338/ 336(3)/ 340(1)/ 340(2)/ 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, learned advocate representing petitioner submits that by keeping petitioner in dark petitioner’s bank account was frozen by the concerned investigating agency which is impermissible and [2] prayer is made for interdicting aforesaid criminal prosecution initiated against petitioner thereby permitting petitioner to operate his bank account. 5. Case made out in this writ petition is opposed by learned advocates representing State respondents and respondent no.8 being the complainant. 6. Mr. Indrajit Roy Chowdhury, learned Additional Government Pleader representing State respondents has placed before this Court copies of FIR being Uluberia P.S. Case No.569 of 2025 dated 20th November, 2025 and complaint lodged by respondent no.8 against petitioner and other persons. 7. A communication of Sub-Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Criminal Investigation Department, West Bengal is placed before this Court and same is taken on record. 8. It is disclosed in the said communication of EOW that complaint was lodged by respondent no.8 on behalf of Atmosfair gGmbH, Berlin, Germany (fort short, “Atmosfair”) on 20th November, 2025. It is alleged in the said complaint that Atmosfair in different phases during the span of 2012 to 2025 disbursed approximately ₹136,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Hundred Thirty-Six crores) to persons/ entities entrusted with distribution of clean cook-stove and carbon-credit (Gold Standard/ CDM) projects in the State of West Bengal (including Uluberia, other districts of Sunderbans region and Purba Medinipur) and Assam; principal amongst the persons/ entities who were entrusted with the responsibility of executing aforesaid projects, is the present petitioner. Allegation [3] is made that there is misappropriation of funds disbursed by Atmosfair to the petitioner. 9. It is also disclosed in the said communication that primarily concerned authority of local police station was investigating the case but subsequently, taking note of gravity and multi-district transnational ramifications of alleged offence, investigation was transferred and entrusted with Economic Offences Wing, Criminal Investigation Department, West Bengal vide order dated 24th November, 2025. 10. In view of ongoing investigation, this is not the appropriate stage to make observations with regard to veracity of allegations levelled against petitioner. However, prima facie it is found that allegations are serious and grave in nature requiring thorough investigation, in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation at this stage which will frustrate the said investigation. 11. 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 [4] 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.” 12. It was succinctly decided in Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) that Writ Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India thereby considering 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 [5] take coercive step specially taking note of the fact that there is serious allegation of defalcation of funds to the tune of ₹136 crores which needs to be termed as “Economic Offence”. 13. Petitioner has alternative remedy under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail before the appropriate forum. 14. In aforesaid conspectus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the present writ petition and same stands dismissed. 15. However, this order shall not preclude petitioner to take steps, in accordance with law. 16. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court. (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)