The Calcutta High Court reaffirms that where a cognizable offence is disclosed, the police are obligated to register an FIR and proceed with investigation; courts may direct investigation and permit aggrieved senior citizens to seek relief before appropriate forums. This judgment upholds existing precedent and offers binding authority for ensuring police compliance and protection of senior citizens.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/1841/2025 of KRISHNA SARKAR Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCJ0043602025 |
| Date of Registration | 27-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri, Court No. 2 |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure, Senior Citizens’ Protection |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court reiterated that upon receipt of a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR and proceed with investigation. The existence of counter-complaints does not diminish this duty. Where a senior citizen alleges dispossession from property, and criminal complaints are under investigation, civil remedies for recovery of possession may be pursued before appropriate forums. Directions were issued to expedite the investigation and clarify available legal remedies for the petitioner. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, a senior citizen, alleged that he was assaulted and dispossessed from his dwelling by private respondents (including his daughter-in-law) and that the police failed to promptly register an FIR despite a complaint disclosing cognizable offences. The State informed the court that an FIR had since been registered, with the investigation underway, and highlighted a counter-complaint from respondent no. 11 against the petitioner that had already resulted in a chargesheet. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and investigative authorities across India |
| Follows | Duty of police to register FIR upon receipt of a cognizable offence complaint |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court reaffirmed that the registration of FIR by police is mandatory where a cognizable offence is disclosed in the complaint, even if there are counter-complaints.
- Senior citizens alleging forceful dispossession are directed to pursue civil remedies for restoration of possession, concurrent with pending criminal investigations.
- The judgment clarifies that once an FIR has been registered and investigation is proceeding, writ petitions seeking police action become infructuous, but courts can still issue expeditious investigation directions and clarify civil remedies.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted from records that upon the petitioner’s complaint disclosing cognizable offences, an FIR was eventually registered by the police under the relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and investigation was proceeding.
- The presence of counter-complaints—here, from the daughter-in-law (respondent no. 11)—does not negate the obligation of the police to register and investigate the original petitioner’s allegations.
- The court specifically recognized the petitioner’s status as a senior citizen and acknowledged his claim of unlawful dispossession.
- Instead of adjudicating civil rights or granting immediate relief, the court left open to the petitioner the liberty to seek recovery of possession before the appropriate forum, emphasizing that legal remedies in civil law for recovery are available and unaffected by parallel criminal proceedings.
- The court directed completion of the investigation at the earliest, reinforcing the importance of swift police action when senior citizens allege dispossession and assault.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged police inaction despite lodging a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence.
- Claimed to have been assaulted and forcefully dispossessed from his own house by private respondents, including his daughter-in-law.
- Requested direction for police to facilitate his re-entry and peaceful residence in his house.
State
- Informed that an FIR (Pundibari PS Case 747/25 dated August 29, 2025) had been registered on the petitioner’s complaint and investigation was in progress.
- Noted that respondent no. 11 had also lodged a complaint against the petitioner, resulting in a separate FIR (Pundibari PS Case No. 337/25 dated April 12, 2025) and subsequent chargesheet.
- Submitted records and updates on procedural compliance.
Private Respondents
- None appeared.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a senior citizen, alleged that he was assaulted and dispossessed from his own house by his daughter-in-law (respondent no. 11) and others. He filed a complaint with the police disclosing cognizable offences, but initially, no FIR was registered. The State subsequently reported that the police had registered the FIR (Pundibari PS Case 747/25) and commenced investigation. A counter-complaint from respondent no. 11 had also triggered a separate FIR and a filed chargesheet. The petitioner sought court intervention for police inaction and restoration of his residence.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 351(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) formed the basis of the FIRs and chargesheet discussed by the State and court.
- The judgment did not interpret these provisions but relied on the principle that police must register and investigate cognizable offences upon complaint.
- The court also referenced the petitioner’s remedy to seek recovery of possession through the appropriate civil forum, without any statutory interpretation of the underlying property law.
Procedural Innovations
- The court took on record the affidavit of service and allowed its placing before the court.
- It provided explicit liberty to the petitioner (a senior citizen) to approach the appropriate forum for civil relief regarding property possession, without prejudging the merits of the dispute.
- Directed the investigating officer to conclude the investigation expeditiously and in accordance with law.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms the principle that police must register FIRs upon disclosure of cognizable offences and clarifies available remedies, particularly for vulnerable senior citizens.