14.09.2026 04 Court No. 05 (DL) (Suvendu Mukherjee) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (APPELLATE SIDE) WPA 20181 of 2026 Puja Saha Das –Versus – The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Surajit Basu Mr. Rudraksha Chattapadhyay Mr. Sudeepto Kumar Basu …for the petitioner Ms. Arpita Bhattacharya Mr. Anirban Kumar Banerjee …..for the respondent nos. 5 & 6 1) Learned advocate representing petitioner submits that there is necessity to recover stridhan articles as well as dissatisfaction is expressed regarding conduct of investigation by concerned police authorities in Manicktala Police Station Case No. 137 of 2025 dated 10th November, 2025. It is submitted that due to marital violence and discord aforesaid criminal prosecution was initiated requiring expeditious investigation and submission of charge-sheet at an early date. 2) During course of hearing, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1073 (Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri and Others Vs. Safimahamad Fafirbhai 2 Mansuri and Others) in order to get a direction from this Court upon concerned police authorities to expedite investigation. 3) On placing reliance on 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), this Court is of the view that if de facto complainant finds that investigation is not carried out expeditiously, in that event approach has to be made within statutory framework before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 4) In paragraph 13 of Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri (supra) directions were given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in peculiar facts and circumstances and on perusal of paragraph 4 it appears that alleged incident took place when father of appellant was on Haj pilgrimage from 5th February, 2002 to 21st March, 2002. In the present case, FIR was drawn up on 10th November, 2025. Therefore, view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sujal Vishwas Attavar (supra) is found to be applicable. 5) In paragraph 7 of Sujal Vishwas Attavar (supra) it was decided that even after registration of FIR if investigation is not being conducted appropriately then remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking writ jurisdiction in the first instance but in seeking recourse to the statutory framework, unless of course urgency of circumstances warrants otherwise. 6) In aforesaid conspectus, present writ petition is not interfered with and same stands dismissed. 3 7) However, this order shall not preclude petitioner to approach jurisdictional Magistrate in pursuit of remedy. 8) All parties shall act on server copy of this order duly downloaded from official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)