6 31.08.2026 S.Seal Ct.9. CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE WPA 1606 of 2026 Shampa Mahanta Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sandip Guha Mr. Ananda Paul … For the petitioner. Ms. Supriya Singh, Jr. G.P. Mr. Alok Sah … For State. 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record. 2. Complaining inaction on the part of the police authorities failing to take steps and register an FIR on the basis of the petitioner’s written complaint filed on 30th June, 2026, the instant writ petition has been filed. According to the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, on 30th June, 2026 the petitioner had lodged a detailed written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Dhupguri PS disclosing commission of several grave cognizable offences including repeated cruelty, dowry- related harassment, physical assault, attempt to murder by strangulation, criminal intimidation and other offences committed by her husband and his associates but the case was registered by the police authority only on 10th July, 2026. That too after representation was made to the 2 Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri. The petitioner also complains that though the police authorities had direct and personal knowledge of the occurrence, having reached the place of occurrence and rescued the petitioner from the clutches of the accused persons, the concerned police authorities had failed to discharge their duty by registering an FIR or initiating any prompt investigation. 3. It is also stated that on 1st July, 2026, the petitioner had received a telephone call from a mobile no. 9832869933 from one Shri Ranjit Barman, a police personnel attached to concerned police station. During the said conversation, instead of informing the petitioner regarding registration of FIR on her complaint, she was directed to visit the police station and alter the contents of her written complaint. 4. State is represented and would submit that on the basis of the written complaint lodged by the petitioner on 30th June, 2026 a specific case was started being Dhupguri PS case no. 222/2026 dated 10th July, 2026 under Sections 85/85(1)/115(2)/109/3(5) BNS read with Section 3/4 of DP Act. 5. From the report it would transpire that ASI, Ranjit Burman of Dhupguri P.S has conducted the investigation. During the investigation raid was conducted at the house of the FIR named accused persons but no one was present. The investigating officer had also visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of 3 witnesses under Section 180 of BNSS. Later, on the basis of the credible information, the investigating officer had been able to arrest one of the FIR named accused persons, and the accused has been produced before the Learned Court of Jalpaiguri. 6. I find from the materials on record that even after the complaint was lodged on 30th June, 2026, no case was started, rather the Investigating Officer had submitted prosecution under Section 126 of the BNSS against the petitioner as well as her husband and it took more than ten days to start a case by registering the FIR. 7. Further having regard to the claim made by the petitioner in the writ petition that the petitioner had been pressurized to modify the material allegations, it is found from the report filed by the Inspector in Charge that he claims that the above allegation is fallacious, and the allegations as mentioned in paragraph nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 14 of the writ petition with regard to the refusal to register FIR, dereliction of statutory duty against the respondent nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 stands nullified. As such a finding has already been rendered by the Inspector-in-Charge without there being any investigation on the allegation of the petitioner. 8. In the peculiar facts, I am of the view, that the investigation should be conducted by any other officer who is not associated with the concerned police station especially when serious allegations have been leveled by the petitioner against one Ranjit Barman who is attached to the concerned police station. 4 9. This apart, as noted above I find that the Inspector-in-Charge of the concerned police station has already termed the claim made by the petitioner that she was pressurized to modify the allegation to be fallacious, without any investigation in the matter. 10. It is in this peculiar fact, that the above order is being passed. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police is directed to assign the investigation to any other competent officer and complete the same on an expeditious basis. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 12. There shall no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for be given to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)