Patna High CourtCR. WJC/355/2016dismissed

Sushil Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar Through Director General Of Police, Sachiwalaya, Patna And ORS

2016-08-23Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.355 of 2016 ====================================================== Sushil Kumar Jha, Son of Mahesh Jha, R/o Mohalla Balughat, Bandh Road near Raj Narayan Singh College, P.S. Town, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar Through Director General of Police, Sachiwalaya, Patna

2. Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur

3. District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

4. Deputy Director General of Police, Muzaffarpur

5. Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur

6. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur

7. Officer Incharge of Mahila Thana Town Muzaffarpur

8. Rahul Kr Singh, Son of Late Parash Nath Singh

9. Chotu Singh, Son of Late Parash Nath Singh

10. Meena Devi,Wife of Late Parash nath Singh

11. Prabhat Kumar Ranna, Son of Late Prabhakar Rana

12. Ram Pukar Singh, Son of Unknown

13. Shivendar Jha , Son of Raja Jha

14. Pushpa Kumari , D/o Ram Pukar Singh

15. Kajal Mehta, Son of Late Sanjay Mahto -All R/o Mohalla Balughat, Bandh Road, P.S. Town, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwary For the State: : Mr. Rajeev Shekhar, AC to GA 13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA ORAL ORDER 23-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:- (i) To direct the 1st set of respondents for preventing the 2nd set of respondents from committing any criminal activity against the petitioner.

(ii) To arrest the 2nd set of respondents who

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.355 of 2016 (3) dt.23-08-2016 2/2 have taken law in their hands; and (iii) To protect the life and liberty of the petitioner as well as his family members.

The petitioner is said to have purchased property vide sale deeds dated 11th June, 2013. It appears that there is a property dispute of the petitioner with the second set of respondents. Such dispute relating to property cannot be a ground for providing security to protect the life and property. The petitioner, if so advised, may seek the effective and alternative remedy from the Civil Court.

The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations.

(Hemant Gupta, J) mrlU T