05. 05. 01.09.2026 (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. 21280 OF 2026 UMME HANI AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS …………… Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. …For Petitioners Mr. Atanu Basu, Adv, Ms. Ankana Sarkar, Adv. …For State Mr. Debashis Sinha, Adv. Ms. Sharmistha Dhar, Adv. Mr. Rishav Ray, Adv. …For Respondent No.5 Ms. Additiya Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Swarnava Majumdar, Adv. …For Respondent Nos.7 & 8 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of petitioners is taken on record. 2. By presenting this writ petition, petitioners express dissatisfaction with regard to steps taken by the concerned police authority post registration of FIR being Narkeldanga P.S. Case no.414 dated 24th July, 2026 under certain provisions of BNS. According to the petitioners, some other rigorous sections are required to be added in aforesaid criminal prosecution and certain steps are required to be taken for recovery of items which were allegedly stolen on the date of incident. 3. State respondents and private respondents are represented by learned advocates. 4. Learned advocate representing State respondents has filed a communication dated 23rd August, 2026 of Officer-in-Charge, Narkeldanga Police Station and same is taken on record. Copies of said [2] communication are made over to learned advocates representing petitioners and private respondents. 5. It is disclosed in the said communication dated 23rd August, 2026 that based on complaint lodged by petitioners, Narkeldanga P.S. Case no.414 dated 24th July, 2026 was started. Steps taken by the concerned police authority are also disclosed in the said communication. 6. If petitioners are dissatisfied with the steps taken by the concerned police authority while investigating aforesaid criminal prosecution, in that event, petitioners shall be at liberty to approach jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) of BNSS. 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 and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others). In paragraph 7 of Sujal Vishwas Attavar (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has succinctly held that even after registering FIR if proper investigation is not being conducted in that event writ court is not the appropriate forum, parties are required to approach within the statutory framework. 8. In view of availability of alternative remedy, present writ petition is not entertained and same stands dismissed. 9. However, this order shall not preclude petitioners to take steps, in accordance with law. 10. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court. [3] (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)