Patna High CourtCR. WJC/509/2024dismissed

Kumari Jyoti Sahay v. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

2024-04-01Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.509 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Patna ====================================================== Kumari Jyoti Sahay, Daughter Of Dr. Ram Shankar Prasad Resident Of House No 430, Jyoti Niketan, Road No. 6c, Rajendra Nagar, P.S. - Kadam Kuan, District - Patna, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna Bihar 2.

The Principal Secretary, Dept. Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna Bihar 3.

The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Patna, Bihar Bihar 4.

The District Magistrate, Patna, Bihar Bihar 5.

The Senior Superintendent Of Police, Patna, Bihar Bihar 6.

The Officer-In-Charge, Police Station - Kadam Kuan, Patna, Bihar Bihar 7.

Abhay Shankar Deokuliar Son Of Late Mr. Baban Prasad Resident Of House Of Dr. Ak Agarwal, Road No. 6c, Rajendra Nagar, P.S. - Kadam Kuan, District - Patna, Bihar - 800016 ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amit Kumar, Adv For the Respondent/s :

Mr.AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER 01-04-2024

1. The petitioner has grievance not only against Private Respondent No. 7 but also against the Respondent No. 6, i.e., the Officer In-charge, Police Station- Kadam Kuan and other police officers attached to the said police station, to the effect that the said police officers and members of the police force attached to Police Station- Kadam Kuan assisted the Private Respondent No. 7, who is a rank trespasser and is in forcible possession of the ground floor of the house of the

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.509 of 2024(2) dt.01-04-2024 2/3 petitioner.

2. It is also alleged that in spite of making a complaint, the police did not take any action against the private respondent. The private respondent has also removed household articles and other valuables of the petitioner from the ground floor of the subject building. Taking advantage of old age of the petitioner, the private respondent has taken over illegal possession of the ground floor of the subject building.

3. Having heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that even if the case of the petitioner is believed in its face value, efficacious relief of recovery of possession of the ground floor by the petitioner lies in filing a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner draws my attention to Annexure P-3 being a complaint dated 9th of February, 2024 submitted by the petitioner to the Senior Superintendent of Police. It is pointed out by him that the petitioner has alleged that the said trespasser has been continuing his criminal activities, damaging her property and her several costly items and boxes have been removed and stolen by him. The said allegation is absolutely omnibus and

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.509 of 2024(2) dt.01-04-2024 3/3 vague. Details of the alleged stolen property have not been stated in the said complaint dated 9th of February, 2024.

5. On the basis of such complaint/representation, it is not possible for the police to take any action against the Private Respondent No. 7 for theft of the property of the petitioner.

6. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition and accordingly, writ petition is summarily dismissed.

7. However, dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not dis-entitle the petitioner to file appropriate complaint against the wrong-doer before the Police Authority and on filing of such appropriate complaint, the Police Authority shall take necessary step in accordance with law.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J) uttam/- U