Smt. Payel Rani Paul vs The State Of Tripura
2026 Latest Caselaw 108 Tri

Tripura High Court

Smt. Payel Rani Paul vs The State Of Tripura on 21 January, 2026

Author: T.Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA
                          W.P.(Crl)1/2026
Smt. Payel Rani Paul, wife of Sri Samir Das, resident of Anandanagar Para
No.2, Acharjee Para, District- West Tripura
                                                           ----Petitioner(s)
                         Versus
1. The State of Tripura, represented by its Secretary, Home Department,
Government of Tripura, New Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New
Capital Complex, District- West Tripura;
2. The Superintendent of Police, West Tripura;
3. The Officer-in-Charge, Srinagar P.S., Anandanagar, West Tripura;
                                                        ----Respondent(s)

 For Petitioner(s)         :      Mr. S. Majumder, Advocate
For Respondent(s)          :      Mr. Raju Datta, PP
Date of hearing & delivery
of Judgment & Order        :      21.01.2026
Whether fit for reporting :       Yes/No

          HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
                     Judgment & Order (ORAL)
(Dr.T.Amarnath Goud, J)

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking a direction upon the respondents to investigate

into the FIR dated 19.12.2025 filed by the petitioner and to arrest the

accused persons named in the FIR.

2. Relating to an incident of life threatening attack upon the petitioner,

her brother and husband on 16.12.2025, the petitioner lodged a written

complaint before the respondent No.3 herein, on 18.12.2025, narrating the

entire incident and disclosing the names of the accused persons, which has

been registered as Srinagar PS case No. 2025 SRN 026, dated 19.12.2025.

After passing of about 4(four) days when no action was taken by respondent

No.3 against the FIR named accused persons, the petitioner made a

representation to the respondent No.2. Non-action of the respondents

prompted the petitioner to file the instant writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though four days

have elapsed, but the respondents failed to act into the complaint made by

the petitioner and also failed to cause arrest of any of the FIR named accused

persons. Learned counsel, has thus urged this court for a direction upon the

respondents for speedy investigation into the matter and also to arrest the

FIR named accused persons.

5. Learned PP has submitted that the respondent No.3 has registered a

specific case and is investigating the matter.

6. From the record, it is evident that the FIR was registered only on

19.12.2025, but after elapse of only four days of registration of the FIR, the

petitioner approached respondent No.2 by a representation with a prayer for

arresting the FIR named accused persons, without giving substantial time

and without keeping faith upon the Investigating Officer. The Investigating

Officer needs a substantial time to collect evidence, record witness

statements, and analyze documents. The police have the authority to decide

the pace and method of investigation. A few days cannot be considered an

"inordinate delay." The petitioner without giving a reasonable scope to the

police to investigate into the matter has approached this Court.

7. In the light of above, this Court is of the view that the instant Writ

Petition is at its premature stage. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands

dismissed to the extent as indicated above. Pending application(s), if any,

also stands disposed.

S.DATTA PURKAYASTHA,J                      DR.T. AMARNATH GOUD,J






 SAIKAT KAR                   KAR
                              Date: 2026.01.21 23:57:50
                              -08'00'