Court No. 758 29.9.2026 (Item No. 67) (AB) W.P.A. 1486 of 2025 Dinesh Kumar Goyal VS The Inspector-in-charge, Bidhannagar Police Station (North), Kolkata & Ors. Ms. Aratrika Roy …. For the petitioner Mr. Amit Chakraborti, Ld. AGP Ms. Tripti Mukherjee Ms. Sarda Sha …. For the State Mr. Indranil Roy, Ld. Sr. Adv. Ms. Dattatreya Dutta …. For respondent no. 6 The instant writ petition has been filed pursuant to an incident that took place on 5th December, 2024 at around 16.30 hours when the respondent no. 7 being the caretaker of one Ashu Singh went to park a car at a vacant plot situated at AC-87, Sector-I, Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700 064. It is alleged that at such point of time two children were playing at the said plot were asked to move aside. Seeing such incident a family member of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Arpita Goyal protested the said, Mrityunjay Poddar. It is alleged that Mrityunjay Poddar had outraged her modesty by words and had taken her video without her permission. This led to a complaint being lodged to the local Police Station. The petitioner submits that despite such complaint being lodged, no steps were taken by 2 the Police authority. It appears from the record that pursuant to an order of this Court, the local Police Station has prima facie submitted an enquiry report dated 24th December, 2024 where the Police could not find any corroboration to the said allegations. Learned advocate for the petitioner strongly disputes such findings and calls upon this Court to quash the said report and permit her to proceed in accordance with law to redress her grievances. It appears that, the petitioner has made allegations of cognizable offence committed against her. The remedy of the petitioner is to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for registration of an F.I.R. in the event the Police fails to take any steps. This Court does not consider appropriate to direct registration of an F.I.R. in this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Indranil Roy, Senior Advocate appears and submits that his client has been falsely implicated in this proceeding. Admittedly no allegation of commission of any offence has been made against his client. He submits that his client has been implicated only because he was the employer of the Respondent No. 7, and out of personal grudge against his client. Without going into the merits of the allegations or the defence of the parties concerned the instant writ petition is disposed of with the direction to agitate her grievance in accordance with law. 3 If any such complain is made, the same shall be investigated afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly the writ petition being W.P.A. 1486 of 2025 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously. (Anuj Singh, J.)