The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking a direction to the police to register an FIR, reaffirming that the appropriate remedy for such grievances lies before the jurisdictional Magistrate under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and not through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen upheld the order of a Single Bench, observing that the decision to relegate the petitioner to the Magistrate was “quite plausible” and in accordance with the law.
Background of the Case
The appeal, Sanjana Gupta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (M.A.T. 1117 of 2025), challenged an order dated May 5, 2025, passed by a Single Bench in WPA 8817 of 2025.
The appellant/writ petitioner, Sanjana Gupta, had approached the Writ Court alleging police inaction. She claimed that despite lodging a written complaint on January 28, 2025, with the Inspector-in-Charge (Respondent No. 4) regarding an incident that occurred on January 25, 2025, the police failed to register an FIR.
The Single Bench disposed of the writ petition with the observation:
“Since the police have not registered any FIR, it would be the petitioner’s obligation to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate by invoking the relevant provisions of law. The learned Magistrate would also assess regarding the nature of the offence complained of as also ascertain whether any case for investigation is called for, thereafter, pass necessary directions in accordance with law.”
Aggrieved by this refusal to issue a writ of mandamus, the petitioner preferred the instant appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Contentions: Mr. Anirban Mitra, appearing for the appellant, argued that the written complaint disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence by the private respondents. He contended that under Section 175(1) of the BNSS, 2023, a police officer is empowered and duty-bound to investigate any cognizable case.
Mr. Mitra submitted that the Single Bench failed to appreciate that the police authorities had neglected their duty and was “practically persuaded with a faulty report” submitted by the State. He urged the Division Bench to modify the impugned order and direct the registration of an FIR.
Respondents’ Contentions: On behalf of the private respondents, Mr. Debasis Kar argued that the dispute arose from a “long standing matrimonial discord” between the parties, leading to multiple prior FIRs. He submitted that the Single Bench correctly relegated the petitioner to the alternative remedy available before the Magistrate.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgments in Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors. and Moran M. Baselios Marthoma Mathews II & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. to argue that a writ of mandamus should be issued against public authorities for public duties, not for private law remedies. Further reliance was placed on a recent Single Bench decision in Smt. Sonamani Ghosh Vs. The State of West Bengal, arguing that the Writ Court does not entertain private disputes lacking public law elements.
State’s Submissions: Learned A.G.P. Mr. Vimal Kr. Shahi filed a report stating that the parties were at loggerheads due to matrimonial discord. He noted that several previous police complaints had been treated as FIRs, in which final reports had already been submitted.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Division Bench carefully examined the maintainability of the writ petition in light of settled legal propositions regarding the non-registration of FIRs.
On Maintainability: The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage & Ors. (2016), which reiterated the law laid down in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of UP (2008). The Apex Court had held:
“If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police… then the remedy of 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.”
Citing further reliance on Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of UP (2014) and Aleque Padamsee Vs. Union of India (2007), the Bench observed:
“Keeping in mind the proposition of law as enunciated in the aforementioned three reported decisions… we have no hesitation to hold that the writ petition is not at all maintainable since the primary grievance of the writ petitioner before the Writ Court is that her written complaint has not been treated as FIR.”
On Section 175 BNSS: The Court examined Section 175 of the BNSS, specifically Section 175(3) (analogous to Section 156(3) of the old CrPC), which empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation upon an application supported by an affidavit.
The Court noted that the Single Bench had practically granted liberty to the petitioner to invoke this very provision. The Division Bench held:
“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.”
Decision
Finding no merit in the appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and the connected application (CAN 2 of 2025). The Court affirmed that the petitioner must approach the jurisdictional Magistrate to assess the nature of the offence and ascertain if an investigation is called for.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sanjana Gupta Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.
- Case No: M.A.T. 1117 of 2025 (With I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2025)
- Bench: Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen
