Writ jurisdiction should only be exercised when no alternative remedies exist; parties must seek resolution through appropriate legal channels before court intervention.

JUDGMENT :

SUJOY PAUL, ACJ.

1. Mr. Samanta, learned counsel appears on behalf of appellant and Mr. Mitra, learned counsel appears on behalf of State.

2. Heard on admission.

3. This intra-Court appeal questions the validity and correctness of order dated 11.04.2025 passed in W.P.A. 6606 of 2025. The petitioner/appellant before the learned Single Judge prayed for following reliefs:-

“The Application is made bonafide and for the ends of justice.

Under the circumstances the petitioner, therefore, pray for:

a) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no.4 to take steps on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner (Annexure P/2 to the Writ Petition) for bringing the respondent no.5 to 14 under justice and by initiating appropriate criminal proceeding forthwith;

b) A Writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to transmit and produce all relevant records of this case before this Hon'ble Court so that conscionable justice may be done to the petitioner, c) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a) and (b) as above, d) Interim order directing the respondent no.4 to take steps on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner (Annexure P/2 to the Writ Petition) for bringing the respondent no.5 to 14 under justice and by initiating appropriate criminal proceeding forthwith;

e) Ad-interim orders in terms of prayer (d) above, f) Costs of and incidentals to this Writ Petition.”

4. The learned Single Judge opined that so far long standing land dispute between petitioner and private respondents is concerned, the petitioner/appellant has a remedy under the civil law. In addition, learned Single Judge opined that police authorities would continue to oversee that no breach of peace or tranquility takes place or any untoward incident happens.

5. This is trite that no Writ of Mandamus can be issued to reduce a complaint into F.I.R. and take consequential action. This Court has considered a catena of Supreme Court Judgments and High Court Judgments and in Sourav Mitra vs. Swati Chakraborty Bhattacharya and Ors., (2025) SCC OnLine Cal 9425 opined as under:-

“7. On careful perusal of the prayers made by the Respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner it thus appears to this court that it is the primary grievance of the Respondent No. 1/writ petitioner regarding inaction of the police authority in registering FIR and in initiating police case on the basis of her complaint dated 17.09.2025. The second fold of the grievance of the Respondent No. 1/writ petitioner is also the inaction of the police authority in assisting her in opening the padlock of the said flat as has been allegedly put by the appellant/private Respondent No. 7.

8. It thus, appears to us that indisputably at the time of filing of the said writ petition the writ petitioner was out of possession of the said flat, may be on account of allegedly putting of padlock by the appellant Respondent No. 7.

9. The moot question cropped up before us as to whether the learned Single Bench while disposing the said writ petition can at all grant the reliefs as prayed for by passing the order impugned.

10. At this juncture, we propose to look to the provisions of Section 173 (corresponding Section 154, Cr.P.C.) and Section 175 (corresponding Section 156, Cr.P.C.) of the Bhartya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS in short) which are reproduced hereunder in verbatim:

“173. Information in cognizable cases.-(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station, and if given-

(i) orally, it shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as afore-