Item No.20

07.01.2026

Court. No. 2

(gc)

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WPA 2667 of 2025

Sri Mahesh Agarwal

VS

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Amales Ray, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Nigam Mittal

… for the Petitioner.

Ms. Bedashruti Bose,

Ms. Rima Sarkar

… for the State.

Mr. Uday Sankar Sarkar,

Mr. Nabanil Sengupta

…for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6.

1. The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus,

directing the police authorities to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Steps under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) should be

taken by the police authorities.

2. Mr. Ray, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner

submits that it is the duty of the police to register an FIR, if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence. At least, the police authorities should make an enquiry on the basis of the application made by the petitioner in preliminary form, before

coming to a conclusion that the FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence.

3. The petitioner entered into several commercial transactions with Hindustan Construction Company Limited (HCCL). Several purchase orders and work orders were issued by the HCCL to the petitioner, over a period of time. The projects were going on in various parts of Bhutan and the petitioner was required to supply materials and also undertake some construction work.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there are outstanding dues towards the bills raised by the petitioner and such dues go up to more than Rs.56,00,000/-. It is alleged that, HCCL deliberately neglected to pay the amount inter alia, contending that, nothing was due and payable to the petitioner. Accordingly, a learned Advocate by a letter dated August 16, 2024 claimed the outstanding dues.

5. HCCL replied to the said letter through its Advocates on September 23, 2024, contending that no due was payable in respect of Punatsangchhu-I Hydro Electric Project, Nikachhu Hydropower Project and Dagachhu hydroelectric power project.

6. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Jaigaon Police Station on February 21, 2025.

7. Mr. Ray, submits that the police was required to cause a preliminary enquiry and register a case. He relies on Section 173 of the BNSS in support of his contention that, 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 the police station and the substance thereof shall be entered into in a book to be kept by such officer. Sub-section (3) provides the mechanism to be followed by the police authorities upon receipt of information of commission of a cognizable offence. Sub-section (4) provides that any person aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the Officer-in-Charge of the police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1), may send the substance of such information in writing or by post to the Superintendent of Police.

8. The Superintendent of Police, if satisfied, shall investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him. Section 174 has been relied upon in support of the contention that when information with regard to non-cognizable offence has been received, the police shall refer the matter to the Magistrate and no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.

9. In this case, the petitioner claims outstanding dues from HCCL in respect of the work orders and the purchase orders. The work orders contain an arbitration clause and a specific mechanism for settlement of disputes. Thus, the claims against the work orders shall be decided by another forum.

10. With