1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Before: The Hon’ble Justice Anuj Singh W.P.A. No. 3822 of 2024 Subrata Goswami -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratyush Patwari Mr. Mostafizur Rahaman ……… Advocate. For the State : Mr. Suryaneel Das, Ld. AGP Mrs. Suchitra Sinha Chatterjee ……… Advocate For the respondent no. 5 : Mr. Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, (Ld. Sr. ADV.) Mr. Supreem Naskar Mr. Suprovo Dey ……… Advocate For Kamarhati Municipality: Mr. Sankha Subhra Ray ……… Advocate Heard on : 28.09.2026 Judgement on : 09.10.2026 Anuj Singh, J:. 1. The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondent police authorities to register a First Information Report on the petitioner's written complaint dated 04.01.2024 addressed to the Officer in Charge, Belghoria Police Station, alleging forgery of the signature of the petitioner's late father, Bhabatosh Goswami, on a proposed building plan, and of the 2 stamp and/or seal of the Kamarhati Municipality appearing thereon, by the respondent no. 5. 2. The petitioner has also made a representation dated 16.01.2024 under Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the Commissioner of Police, Barrackpore Police Commissionerate. 3. The petitioner, although lodged a complaint with the police station and then sent a representation to the Commissioner of Police disclosing the alleged cognizable offence committed by the private respondent, it proceeded to file the present writ petition under Article 226, praying for a direction upon the police authorities to register an FIR and investigate into the case. 4. One of the principal questions that falls for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner could file the present writ petition for a direction to the police station to register a case when a specific statutory remedy under Section 175 of the BNSS is available to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner argues that the existence of an alternative remedy may not be a bar to the filing of the present writ petition. 6. The question of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner and its bearing on the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution shall be discussed later in the judgment. Before addressing such question, it is necessary to advert to an interim order passed in the instant petition. 7. By an interim order dated 4.08.2025, this court directed that the disputed signature on the building plan be examined by a handwriting expert of QDEB, CID. The document was sent for 3 the opinion of the handwriting expert. The report of the handwriting expert has been placed before this Court. A perusal of the report would reveal at the finding of the expert is inconclusive. It does not give a definite opinion on whether the disputed signature is or is not that of the petitioner's late father or whether the signature was forged. 8. Upon receipt of this opinion, which remains inconclusive, the petitioner by the way of another interim relief has prayed that the QDEB, CID, West Bengal be directed to re examine the disputed signature on the questioned document to ascertain whether forgery has been committed. 9. This Court is of the opinion that unless a case is registered investigation, any exercise of examining the authenticity of the signature will serve no purpose. It is an admitted position that till date no case has been registered on the allegations of the petitioner. Unless a case is registered and an investigation is undertaken therein, the question of looking into the aspect of forgery of the signature does not arise. 10. Since the expert's report is inconclusive, this Court does not consider it appropriate to keep the writ petition pending or to go into the disputed questions of fact in its writ jurisdiction. The correct course of action, in view of this court, is to have such examination conducted only in the course of investigation of a formally registered FIR. Before registration of any FIR or existence of a case, the present exercise would only be fishing out of evidence which cannot be taken to any logical conclusion. 11. In light of of these facts, this court is of the considered view the petitioner has an alternative remedy. 4 12. The next question that falls for consideration before this court is whether this court should direct the police authorities to register a case and investigate into the matter when, admittedly, already a remedy is available to the petitioner. 13. The law in this regard is well settled that where the police declines to register a First Information Report, the aggrieved person must take recourse to the remedies provided by the statute, namely, an approach to the Superintendent of Police and thereafter to the jurisdictional Magistrate, and ought not to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court in the first instance. 14. In Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 798, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “7. Keeping in view the above exposition of law, we find that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to have been invoked when alternative equally efficacious statutory remedies were available. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being conducted,then the remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction in the first instance, but in seeking recourse to the statutory framework, unless of course the urgency of the circumstances warrant otherwise. 8. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) provides a structured sequential mechanism for initiating criminal prosecution. The statutory framework contemplates that information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is first placed before the officer-in-charge of the police station and an FIR is registered under Section 173(1) BNSS. In the event of refusal to register the FIR, recourse lies before the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS and, thereafter, before the Magistrate, under Section 175(3) BNSS. … 10. … Entertaining a writ petition, in the said circumstances, would in effect, result in the High Court, acting as a forum of first instance thereby bypassing the statutory scheme in its entirety. This is impermissible, save and except in special circumstances as mentioned in Radha Krishan Industries (supra), which are conspicuously absent in the present case. 11. The High Court is not bound to entertain a writ petition merely because a case of alleged inaction or negligence is made out against 5 a statutory authority. Ordinarily, where a statute provides a complete and efficacious remedy, the same must be exhausted before invoking constitutioal jurisdiction [See: Sakiri Vasu (supra) and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (supra)]. …” 15. In Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 2 SCC 622, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained that where the police decline to register an FIR, the remedy lies before the Magistrate. It further held that, under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, the Magistrate must apply his judicial mind and may conduct an enquiry before directing registration of an FIR. The relevant paragraphs read as follows: “11. Over a period of time and in view of many decisions of this Court, if the officer in charge of the police station concerned for some reasons declines to register the FIR, then the law has left it open for the complainant to filean appropriate application before the Magistrate and pray for police investigation. Once an order is passed for police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, then it becomes a police case. At the end of the investigation, the police may either file a charge-sheet or file an appropriate closure report. 12. However, what is important to observe is that whenever any application is filed by the complainant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate seeking police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, it is the duty of the Magistrate concerned to apply his mind for the purpose of ascertaining whether the allegations levelled in the complaint constitute any cognizable offence or not. In other words, the Magistrate may not undertake the exercise to ascertain whether the complaint is false or otherwise, however, the Magistrate is obliged before he proceeds to pass an order for police investigation to closely consider whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are borne out on plain reading of the complaint. … 34. A comparison of Section 175(3) BNSS with Section 156(3) CrPC indicates three prominent changes that have been introduced by the enactment of BNSS as follows: (a) First, the requirement of making an application to the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3). 6 (b) Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such enquiry as he deems necessary before making an order directing registration of FIR. (c) Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions of the officer in charge of the police station as regards the refusal to register an FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3).” 16. This Court, in Sourav Mitra v. Swati Chakraborty, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 9425, after considering Sections 173 and 175 of the BNSS, held that an aggrieved person has an alternative remedy against the inaction of the police in registering an FIR. The Court observed as follows: “13. Section 175(3) of BNSS further postulates that the event the jurisdictional Officer-in-charge of the Police Station or the Jurisdictional SP refuse to register FIR, the aggrieved person still has his remedy to approach before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate by filing an application supported by affidavit and the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate on receipt of such application after making such enquiry may order investigation by a police officer. It thus, appears to us that there is availability of alternative remedy to an aggrieved person regarding inaction of police in registering an FIR. … 20. … that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. …” 17. Similarly, a Division Bench of this Court in Sanjana Guptav. State of West Bengal (M.A.T. 1117 of 2025 with I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2025) upheld an order of the learned Single Judge which, instead of directing registration of an FIR, had relegated the writ petitioner to the jurisdictional Magistrate. The Division Bench held as follows: “24. It appears to us that while passing the impugned order the learned Single Bench noticed the provision of Section 175 of the BNSS and practically granted liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate and the jurisdictional Magistrate was also directed to assess the nature 7 of the offence complained of as well as to ascertain whether any investigation is at all called for or not. 25. In our considered view, the view taken by the learned Single Bench is quite plausible one and the same is in accordance with the provisions of Section 175 of the BNSS.” 18. In the present case, the petitioner has already made a representation dated 16.01.2024 to the Commissioner of Police, Barrackpore Police Commissionerate under Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 19. The next step available to him under the statutory scheme is to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate. No exceptional circumstance has been shown that would justify this Court bypassing that remedy in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the prayer for direction upon the Police Station for registration of the FIR is considered and rejected in view of existence of an effacious, alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner u/s 175 of the B.N.S.S. 20. A copy of the handwriting expert's report shall be made available to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be at liberty to place the report and other material obtained in these proceedings before the jurisdictional Magistrate. If the investigation is subsequently undertaken in accordance with law, such material shall be made available to the investigating officer of the case for consideration. 21. It is pertinent to record that the inconclusive opinion of the handwriting expert shall not be construed as a finding either establishing or negating the alleged forgery. The necessity of any further forensic examination shall be considered independently by the police in accordance with law at an appropriate stage. 22. The report of the handwriting expert shall be made over to the Inspector-in-Charge, Belghoria Police Station. The police authorities shall take it into consideration along with the other 8 materials on record. It is further made clear that whatever material has been collected in the course of the present writ petition shall be used by the Investigating Officer of the case who subsequently takes over the investigation after registration of the First Information Report. 23. This Court has not gone into the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner or expressed any opinion on the genuineness of the documents in question. None of the observations made here shall prejudice the rights and contentions of any of the parties in any proceeding. 24. With the above observations and directions, WPA 3822 of 2024 is dismissed, without any orders as to costs. 25. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Anuj Singh, J.)