IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION 29.09.2026 rc/ct.no.CB-06 Item No.146 WPA No. 451 of 2026 Parul Mustafi Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Adv. Sayan De Adv. Esha Acharya Adv. Rimik Chakraborty ..for the petitioner Adv. Kunaljit Bhattacharyee Adv. Supriya Singh Adv. Samar Rakshit ….for the State Report in the form of affidavit submitted by the State is taken on record. The petitioner is the hapless mother of Sovan Mustafi who expired on December 14, 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 5th respondent is the wife of the deceased. The deceased fell from the staircase of the house on December 6/7, 2025 in inebriated condition and was admitted to the hospital by his wife. He was treated at the hospital till December 13, 2025. The 5th respondent brought him home without completing his treatment on December 13, 2025 as a result of which he succumbed on December 14, 2025. After 23 days, the 5th respondent lodged FIR against the petitioner, her daughter and her minor grandson pursuant to which the petitioner and her daughter were arrested. The petitioner was released on bail on February 13, 2026. 2 She lodged a complaint before the police authority on February 15, 2026 against the respondents, holding them responsible for her son’s death. The complaint has not been registered as FIR or acted upon till date. The petitioner also submitted a representation before the Commissioner of Police in this regard on March 03, 2026 but to no effect. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the police authority to register FIR and investigate the case in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the authorities in Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292 and Punit Beriwala Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983 in support of his contention. It appears from the report in the form of affidavit submitted by the State that investigation with regard to the FIR lodged by the 5th respondent is in progress. Since the Investigating Officer found that the allegations in the earlier FIR and the FIR lodged by the petitioner substantially overlap, no fresh case was registered in respect of the second FIR. It was treated as a general diary and directed to be tagged with the earlier investigation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the authority in Punit Beriwala (supra) has observed that 3 “…in cases involving cross FIRs, it would be prudent and fair if the investigation was carried out in a comprehensive manner. After all, the object of the investigation is the discovery of truth. In the present case, in view of cross-FIRs, the investigating authority will conclude that either the receipts in favour of the Appellant are forged and fabricated or that the receipts are genuine. The complicity of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein can only be ascertained once the investigation is permitted to reach its logical conclusion.” The said principle has been echoed in the authority in Upkar Singh (supra). In the case in hand, the 5th respondent has lodged FIR against the petitioner and others on the issue of death of her husband. The death of the same person is involved in the subsequent complaint lodged by the petitioner wherein she has held the respondents responsible for the said death. The said cross FIR lodged by the petitioner needs to be investigated upon alongwith the earlier FIR holistically in order to arrive at the truth. Unless the complaint lodged by the petitioner is registered, the scope of holistic investigation with regard to both the complaints shall be eclipsed. In view of the above and placing reliance on the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the authorities referred to above, the Inspector in Charge, 4 New Jalpaiguri Police Station, being the 4th respondent herein, is directed to register the complaint lodged by the petitioner as FIR and conduct investigation along with the earlier FIR lodged by the 5th respondent. The investigation relating to both the FIRs shall be conducted in a composite manner in order to unearth the truth. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh,J)