17 2255..0099..22002266 Ct. No. 05 adeb WPA 24767 of 2026 Matibur Rahaman Laskar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Md. Wasim Akram Ms. S. Parven Mr. Subrata Rishi …for the petitioner Mr. Sayan MUkherjee Ms. Rimisha Bhadra …for the respondent no. 5 Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta Mr. Madhu Jana Mr. Niladri Saha …for the State 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. By presenting this writ petition validity and legality of FIR No. 917 of 2026 dated 28th August, 2026 is questioned and learned advocate representing petitioner submits that criminal prosecution which was initiated is frivolous and vexatious requiring interdiction by this Court. It is also contended that alleged incident took place in the month of July, 2023 whereas impugned FIR was registered on 28th August, 2026. According to petitioner since contemporaneous steps were not taken by the defacto complainant, concerned police authorities may be restrained from 2 investigating case by quashing aforesaid impugned FIR. Court is informed that after filing of this writ petition application for pre- arrest bail was filed before the learned Sessions Court, Alipur and same is pending. 3. State respondents and respondent no. 5 are represented by learned advocates. 4. It is submitted on behalf of respondent no. 5 that on 4th July, 2023 when her husband was returning home he was physically assaulted by accused persons including petitioner and they hurled bomb leading to amputation of right fingers of husband of respondent no. 5. It is further alleged that incident was reported to the concerned police authority on 14th July, 2023 but name of present petitioner being principal accused could not be included in the complaint since he was panchayat pradhan and an influential person. 5. On perusal of complaint dated 28th August, 2026 giving rise to Joynagar Police Station Case No. 917 of 2026 dated 28th August, 2026, it appears that present petitioner allegedly hurled bomb at the husband of respondent no. 5 causing serious bodily injury leading to amputation of right fingers and person became disabled. 3 6. Allegation made against petitioner is serious and investigation is at the nascent stage. Therefore, this Court is not required to make roving enquiry to find out veracity of alleged incident. 7. Police authorities are directed to investigate the case strictly in accordance with law and to unearth truth. Though it is contended on behalf of petitioner that alleging an incident which took place in the month of July, 2023 complaint was lodged on 28th August, 2026 but this Court cannot brush aside fact that there is further allegation, petitioner being the principal accused was pradhan of gram panchayat and he was an influential person as a result whereof in spite of lodging complaint on 14th July, 2023 ultimately criminal proceeding could not be drawn up against petitioner. 8. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 (Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and Others). Paragraph 33.16 of Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) 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 4 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.” 9. Writ Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India 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 concerned police authority not to take coercive steps specially when allegations are serious and investigation is at the nascent stage. 10. Moreover, it appears from the submission made on behalf of petitioner that alternative remedy is availed of by filing an application 5 before learned Sessions Court seeking pre- arrest bail. 11. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with this writ petition and same stands dismissed. 12. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to pursue remedy in accordance with law. 13. Parties to act on server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)