IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.14551 of 2010
1. MOBIN ALAM @ MADAN MIYAN S/O LATE MADHIB SHAH R/O
VILL.- SIMANDRA, P.S.- SIKANDRA, DISTT.- JAMUI
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR
3. D.G.P., PATNA, BIHAR
4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMUI, DISTT.- JAMUI
5. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, JAMUI
6. CIRCLE OFFICER, SIKANDRA, CIRCLE OFFICE, DISTT.- JAMUI
7. S.P., JAMUI, DISTT.- JAMUI
8. DY. S.P., JAMUI, DISTT.- JAMUI
9. OFFICER IN CHARGE, SIKANDRA, P.S.- SIKANDRA, DISTT.-
JAMUI
10. BRAHMDEO KESHARI S/O BUDHAN KESHRI R/O VILL.-
SIKANDRA, P.S.- SIKANDRA, DISTT.- JAMUI
-----------
2. 28.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
State.
The petitioner appears to be having a private
dispute with private respondent no. 10. The dispute
relates to a house property. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the local Police at the behest of
respondent no. 10 has forcibly entered the premises,
locking certain portions and demolished certain portions.
He places reliance in support of the same on Annexure-3
dated 31.10.2009 to urge that it was the Police who was
acting in excess of power in a private dispute. Reliance is
also placed on pleadings in Paragraph-5 that the officer
incharge Sikandra Police Station was acting at the behest
of private respondent no. 10. The submission therefore is
that the Police cannot interfere in a purely private civil
2
dispute more particularly by intrusion into the property of
a citizen without authority of law.
The writ petition was filed on 31.8.2010 after
serving two copies in the office of Advocate General. More
than six months later the official respondents seem to be
in no hurry to file a counter affidavit. Learned counsel for
the State from Annexure-3 dated 31.10.2009 submits
that the Circle Officer had only called for a report from the
Officer incharge, Sikandra Police Station and directed him
to ensure that peace and tranquility is not disturbed.
In a private dispute between citizens, when both
of them have remedies available to them under the Civil
law, the Police has no authority to interfere unless there
be any competent orders of a Court of law. If the dispute
takes a criminal camouflage there have to be appropriate
orders instituting a case and investigation followed by
preliminary orders to interfere under provisions of the
Penal Code or the Cr.P.C. as the case may be on orders by
a competent authority.
This aspect has been emphasized by this Court
in more than one case of the present nature and the Court
has deprecated the interference of the Police in purely civil
matters between private parties.
Let the petitioner represent before the
Superintendent of Police, Jamui with regard to his
3
grievance that the officer incharge, Sikandra Police
Station, was unlawfully intruding into a purely private
dispute. The Superintendent of Police is required to hear
the concerned parties and then pass a reasoned and
speaking order. If he comes to the conclusion that
without any authority of law the officer incharge, Sikandra
Police Station has intruded into the private dispute,
necessary consequential orders shall be passed by the
Superintendent of Police restoring status quo ante existing
before any action was taken by the officer incahrge. If the
officer incharge had acted in pursuance of any order of a
competent authority exercising statutory powers or a
Court of law, the Superintendent of Police should be at
liberty to consider the same. If the officer incharge acted
without authority of law any action directed by the
Superintendent of Police shall not prejudice private
respondent no. 10 or any other person from instituting
appropriate proceeding in a competent Court of law which
shall have to be decided on its own merits in accordance
with law.
The writ application stands disposed.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)