A writ petition ordinarily cannot bypass the Magistrate remedy under Section 175(3) BNSS.

The petitioner alleged that respondent no. 5 forged the signature of the petitioner’s late father and the Kamarhati Municipality’s seal on a proposed building plan.

After submitting a complaint to Belghoria Police Station on 4 January 2024 and a representation to the Commissioner of Police on 16 January 2024, the petitioner sought a writ directing the police to register an FIR and investigate.

During the proceedings, the Court directed a handwriting examination; the expert’s report was inconclusive. The petitioner then sought a further examination.

Whether the petitioner could invoke Article 226 for a direction to register an FIR despite the statutory remedy under the BNSS.

Whether the Court should direct police to register an FIR and investigate where the petitioner had not yet approached the jurisdictional Magistrate under the statutory scheme.

Whether the Court should direct a further forensic examination of the disputed signature in the absence of a registered case and investigation.

Sections 173(1), 173(4) and 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 establish a sequential remedy where police refuse to register an FIR: the complainant may approach the Superintendent of Police and thereafter the jurisdictional Magistrate.

Under Section 175(3), the Magistrate must apply judicial mind and may conduct an inquiry before directing investigation; the application must comply with the statutory requirements, including submission of the prior application to the Superintendent of Police and an affidavit.

The Court relied on *Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra*, *Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra*, *Sourav Mitra v. Swati Chakraborty* and *Sanjana Gupta v. State of West Bengal* for the principles that the statutory remedy should ordinarily be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction and that a High Court should not act as the forum of first instance absent special circumstances.

The petitioner had already made a representation to the Commissioner of Police but had not pursued the next available remedy before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The Court found no exceptional circumstance warranting bypass of that remedy and therefore declined to direct FIR registration.

It also considered the expert report inconclusive and reasoned that further examination of the signature should be considered, if appropriate, in the course of an investigation following registration of an FIR; a pre-investigation examination would amount to fishing for evidence.

The expert report was to be made available to the petitioner and the Inspector-in-Charge of Belghoria Police Station; its inconclusive opinion was not to be treated as establishing or negating forgery, and any further forensic examination was left to be considered in accordance with law.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations or the genuineness of the documents.