06 Ranajit (AR.CT) 10.09.2026 Ct.05 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. NO 20815 OF 2026 Biswadeep Kundu -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Ram Anand Agarwala, Mr. Ananda Gopal Mukherjee, Ms. Sonam Ray, Ms. Nasrin Khatoon ….for the petitioner. Mr. Arkaprava Sen, Mr. Ravi Kumar Dubey ….for the State. Mr. Pintu Karar, Ms. Meghna Chowdhury ….for the private respondents. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. By presenting this writ petition propriety of FIR being Uttarpara Police Station Case No.212/26 dated 13th July, 2026 is questioned. 3. Mr. Agarwala, learned advocate representing petitioner submits that criminal prosecution initiated by lodging complaint dated 13th July, 2026 by defacto- complainant being respondent no.4 is frivolous and vexatious requiring interdiction by this Court in exercise of high prerogative writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner further prays for passing of an interim order not to take coercive steps against petitioner being husband of defacto-complainant. 4. Respondent no.4 and State respondents are represented by learned advocates. 5. This Court has perused complaint dated 13th July, 2026 of defacto-complainant and it transpires that there is marital discord for certain reasons narrated therein which gave rise to aforesaid criminal prosecution. 6. Since investigation is going on and same is at nascent stage this is not appropriate so far this Court is concerned to make a roving enquiry in order to find out veracity of contents of complaint dated 13th July, 2026. Court finds it apt to rely upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 (Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.). 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 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 2 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.” 7. Writ Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 concerned police authorities not to take coercive steps specifically when defacto-complainant being wife has made certain allegations against petitioner being her husband and her in-laws. Petitioner has alternative remedy under Section 482 BNSS seeking pre-arrest bail before appropriate forum. 8. In aforesaid conspectus, present writ petition is not interfered with and same stands dismissed. 3 9. However, this order shall not preclude petitioner to approach appropriate forum in pursuit of remedy. 10. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 4