1. Writ for mandamus to register FIR alleging cheating in commercial transactions — Outstanding dues dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 105
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Mahesh Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
WPA 2667 of 2025
Important Points
A writ of mandamus for registering an FIR is not warranted in disputes that are primarily civil or commercial in nature, especially when the police have already initiated a preliminary enquiry as per law.
Subject
Criminal Law - Police Investigation
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Criminal Procedure - Registration of FIR - Dispute arising out of commercial transactions - Where a dispute is primarily civil in nature and relates to outstanding dues under work orders containing arbitration clauses or purchase orders with specific jurisdictional agreements, the police are not mandated to register an FIR unless a clear cognizable offence is disclosed. (Para 9, 10, 12)
(B) Writ of Mandamus - Police Inquiry - When police authorities have already initiated a preliminary enquiry and the parties are in discussion to resolve the dispute, the court is not required to issue a mandamus for the registration of an FIR, leaving the authorities to act in accordance with the law. (Para 14, 15)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the police to register an FIR for non-payment of dues in a commercial transaction.
(B) Writ of Mandamus - Police Inquiry - When police authorities have already initiated a preliminary enquiry and the parties are in discussion to resolve the dispute, the court is not required to issue a mandamus for the registration of an FIR, leaving the authorities to act in accordance with the law. (Para 14, 15)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the police to register an FIR for non-payment of dues in a commercial transaction.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amales Ray, Nigam Mittal
For the Respondents: Bedashruti Bose, Rima Sarkar, Uday Sankar Sarkar, Nabani Sengupta
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amales Ray, Nigam Mittal
For the Respondents: Bedashruti Bose, Rima Sarkar, Uday Sankar Sarkar, Nabani Sengupta
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner: Police must register FIR for cognizable offence; Respondent: Dispute is purely civil, no criminal element. (Para 2 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Claim arises from commercial transactions with arbitration and jurisdiction clauses; police already conducting preliminary enquiry. (Para 9 , 10 , 14 , 15 )
4. Writ court cannot order FIR registration when police are already undertaking lawful preliminary enquiry; no mandamus lies. (Para 14 , 15 )
5. Writ petition disposed of; no order as to costs; police to proceed in accordance with law. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
6. Should a writ of mandamus be issued directing police to register an FIR when the complaint discloses a cognizable offence?
No; if police have already initiated a preliminary enquiry and are taking steps as per law, the writ court need not issue mandamus. (Para 14 , 15 )
7. Does a dispute over outstanding dues under commercial contracts with arbitration and jurisdiction clauses constitute a cognizable criminal offence?
Mere non-payment under commercial contracts does not automatically disclose a cognizable offence; the civil nature predominates. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 )
8. What is the police's duty under the BNSS upon receiving information of a cognizable offence?
Police must register FIR if information discloses cognizable offence; otherwise, a preliminary enquiry may precede registration. (Para 2 , 7 , 8 )
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 regard to the purchase orders, the same reflects that the jurisdiction of the High Court at Mumbai had been agreed to between the parties for adjudication of issues arising out of the purchase orders. Although, Mr. Ray contends that the parties may have agreed to a chosen forum with regard to issues arising out of the those purchase orders, but, the e
