JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. The appellant/writ petitioner, the respondent State and its instrumentalities and/or private respondents are represented by their respective Counsels.

2. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties at length.

3. The subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal is the order dated 05.05.2025 as passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in WPA 8817 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the said Court while disposing of the aforementioned writ petition expressed the following view :

“………The petitioner complains that the police authorities should have in the facts and circumstances registered an FIR. 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.”

4. The writ petitioner felt aggrieved and thus, preferred the instant appeal.

5. At the time of hearing, Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/ writ petitioner at the very outset draws our attention to page nos. 29 to 32 of I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2025 being a copy of the written complaint as lodged by the writ petitioner with the respondent no. 4 authority. It is argued that despite the fact that the said written complaint dated 28.01.2025 disclosed the commission of cognizable offence by the private respondents, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 authorities have failed and neglected to treat the said written complaint as an FIR and finding no other alternative the writ petitioner approached the learned Single Bench with a prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus against the respondent authorities more specifically, against the respondent no. 5 authority to lodge FIR against the private respondents in connection with the incident as occurred on 25.01.2025 and as has been reduced into writing in the written complaint dated 28.01.2025.

6. It is submitted that the learned Single Bench while disposing the said writ petition failed to visualize that under Section 175 (1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the BNSS in short) a police officer is empowered to investigate any cognizable case. It is submitted by Mr. Mitra that the learned Single Bench has failed to notice that the written complaint dated 28.01.2025 disclosed cognizable offence committed by the private respondents and the said Single Bench was practically persuaded with a faulty report as submitted on behalf of the State and thus, declined to grant relief to the writ petitioner causing serious miscarriage of justice.

7. Drawing attention to the report dated 01.01.2026 as submitted by the respondent no. 5 authority in this appeal, it is further submitted by Mr. Mitra that an identical report was submitted before this Court wherein no cogent reason could be assigned by the respondent No. 5 authority for not registering the FIR.

8. It is argued by Mr. Mitra that for the reasons stated hereinabove appropriate relief/reliefs may be granted to the appellant/writ petitioner by modifying the order impugned and by granting appropriate relief/reliefs in terms of the prayers made in the writ petition before the learned Single Bench.

9. Per contra Mr. Kar learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondents however contended that from the report as submitted before the learned Single Bench as well as from the report as submitted before this Court, it would reveal that there exists a long standing matrimonial discord between the writ petitioner and the private respondents. It is further argued that the learned Single Bench while passing the impugned order duly noticed that on account of such matrimonial discord several FIRs had been lodged and thus, rightly observed that the relief as sought for by the wri