Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Merjul Hoque Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 August, 2025
Court No. 8
04.08.2025
Item No.44
PA (Chamber)
WPA (P) No. 517 of 2022
Merjul Hoque Mondal
VS
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
1. None appears for the parties.
2. The instant public interest litigation has
been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for
the following relief(s):-
"(a) Leave to move this application jointly for
the interest of public;
(b) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do
issue commanding the respondents to show
cause as to why the respondent police
authorities shall not be directed to take
expeditious and adequate steps towards
initiate fair investigation process of the
petitioner’s case and arrest the respondent nos.
11 and 12 as per the FIR No. 537 of 2022
dated 30.08.2022 under section 379/411/
506/34 of the Indian Penal Code;
(c) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do
issue commanding the respondents to act as
per the mass petition dated 02.09.2022
submitted by the petitioners and other persons
2
of the locality along with the written complaint
dated 02.09.2022 made by the petitioner;
(d) A writ of or in the nature of Certiorari do
issue directing the respondent authority to
transmit all relevant records lying at the office
of the respondent authority pertaining to the
instant case and certify the same so that
conscionable justice may be administered and
thereupon quash the same;
(e) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a) to (d) above;
(f) An interim order do issue thereby directing
the respondent authorities to take expeditious
and adequate steps towards initiate fair
investigation process of the petitioner’s case
and arrest the respondent nos. 11 and 12 as
per the FIR No. 537 of 2022 dated 30.08.2022
under section 379/411/506/34 of the Indian
Penal Code;
(g) Costs and incidental charges to this
application;
(h) Such further order or orders and/or
direction or directions be passed as Your
Lordship may deem fit and proper.”
3. Upon perusing and considering the
materials on records it transpires that the instant
PIL filed by the petitioner pertains to in action of
3
the police authorities by not taking cognizance of
the FIR registered dated 30.08.2022 against
erring Respondent No.11 and 12 for delving into
illegal activities and theft/misappropriation of
ration cards and goods within the village of
Kusbaria under Domkol Police Station. The
petitioners have already submitted a mass
petition dated 02.09.2022 before the State
authorities to arrest the accused persons being
the Respondent No. 11 and 12 with regard for
unequal distribution of ration goods which
remained unconsidered by the authority
concerned.
4. The petitioner is absent, thus it shows that
she must have lost her interest in the instant
case.
5. The main bone of contention of the writ
petitioner is taking necessary action by
registering First Information Report (FIR) against
the private respondent No. 11 and 12 and to take
necessary steps in accordance with law for
arresting the culprits in respect of unequal
distribution of ration goods and cards in the
village of Kusbaria.
6. The point involved in this case is no more
res Integra. The question cropped up before a
Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
4
the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v.
Hemant Yashwant Dhage & Ors. Reported at
(2016) 6 SCC 277 as to whether the remedy
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can
be availed of if there exists inaction of Police in
registering the FIR in relation to a cognizable
offence. The Apex Court drawn the curtains on
the said aspects in following words:
“2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of
U.P., 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) CrPC. If such an appointment
under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the
Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can
direct proper investigation to be done which
includes in his discretion, if he deems it
necessary, recommending change of the
investigating officer, so that a proper
investigation is done in the mater. We have said
this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have
found in this country is that the High courts
have been flooded with writ petitions praying for
registration of the first information report or
5praying for a proper investigation.”(emphasis
supplied)
7. Thereafter, a Division Bench of Madhya
Pradesh High Court again dealt with this aspect
by considering the Constitutional Bench
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of:
• Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P.
reported at (2014) 2 SCC 1 and in
• Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India
reported at (2007) 6 SCC 171
• Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. reported at
(2008) 2 SCC 409.
8. It is also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan Versus
Union of India and Others reported in (2014)
11 Supreme Court Cases 477 observing that
statutory provisions and particularly panel law
provide sufficient remedy to curb the menace of
“hate speeches” in the form of posts in twitter.
Thus, person aggrieved must resort to the remedy
provided under a particular statute.
9. After considering the above judgments,
speaking for the Bench, Hemant Gupta, J. (as His
Lordship then was) opined as follows:-
“The Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari
(supra) was considering the question as to
6whether registration of an FIR is mandatory,
in case it discloses a cognizable offence. If
the information does not disclose a
cognizable offence, it mandates to conduct a
preliminary enquiry. But, there is no
mandate in the aforesaid judgment that his
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India should issue a direction for
registration of an FIR. Such a question has
been specifically answered in Alegue
Padamsee (supra), Sakiri Vasu (supra) and
Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe (supra).”
(Emphasis Supplied)
10. In view of the authoritative pronouncement
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Division
Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on the
above aspect, no writ of mandamus/direction can
be issued for lodging of FIR. The petitioner has an
efficacious remedy under the criminal law. Hence
the PIL cannot be entertained.
11. However, liberty is reserved to the
petitioner to avail remedy under the criminal law.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUJOY PAUL, J)
(SMITA DAS DE, J.)