Calcutta High Court
WPA/13243/2026 of ALOKESH KUILA AND ORS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 9 October 2026
Item No.21 (DL) Court No.758 AJ. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION W.P.A. 13243 of 2026 Alokesh Kuila & Ors. -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Nirmalendu Bera, Mr. Gora Chand Samanta. … for the petitioner. Mr. Suryaneel Das, Ld. A.G.P., Ms.
09.10.2026
Item No.21 (DL)
Court No.758
AJ.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
W.P.A. 13243 of 2026
Alokesh Kuila & Ors.
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Nirmalendu Bera,
Mr. Gora Chand Samanta.
… for the petitioner.
Mr. Suryaneel Das, Ld. A.G.P.,
Ms. Anita Kundu,
Ms. Sumita Sarkar.
….for the State.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Affidavit of service filed by the learned Advocate for the petitioners is taken on record.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner paid Rs.12,90,000/- to the private respondents in furtherance of a travel business agreement. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners have been cheated by the private respondents. The learned Advocate for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners have written series of complaints, including a complaint dated 29th May, 2026 to the Police Authorities, who have failed to take steps by registration of an FIR and cause investigation into the matter.
3. Learned Advocate for the State appears and opposes the writ petition stating that the same is not maintainable.
4. The petitioners being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the Police Authority
2 have approached this Court with a prayer that the respondents be directed to register an FIR and investigation into the case.
5. In light of the fact that the petitioners has an alternative efficacious remedy of approaching the Court of the learned Magistrate ventilating their aforesaid grievance, the instant writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Court of the learned Magistrate with an appropriate application under Section 175 of the BNSS. If such application is made, the same shall consider and dispose of in accordance with law.
6. The above view is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Ambadkar –Vs- State of Maharashtra (2026)2 SCC 622 and this Court in MAT 1117 of 2025 in Sanjana Gupta –Vs- State of West Bengal.
7. WPA 13243 of 2026 is accordingly disposed of, on the above observations.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Anuj Singh, J.)