Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
20995W/2009 on 1 March, 2010
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
01.03.2010
kc. 19 W.P.20995(W) of 2009
Mr. Md. Mohammad Ali Mallick ...for the petitioners.
Mrs. Sima Sengupta
Ms. Susmita Biswas .....for the State.
Mr. U.S. Chattopadhyay ..for the respondent 7
In this petition dated 2.12.2007 the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:
(a) "A writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature thereof commanding the respondents particularly the Inspector-in-Charge, Burdwan Sadar to perform the statutory duty as enjoyed by them as per provision of Indian Police Act, 1860 and Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure for protecting the life and property of the petitioner in connection with the present disputed land in performing their Paultry Farm business properly and further to take cognizance of offence as committed by the private respondents and their associates".
If the police authorities have not registered FIR on the basis of the complaint of the petitioners alleging commission of cognizable offences by the private respondents, it is open to them to pursue the remedy provided by the Criminal Procedure Code. A writ petition for this purpose would not be maintainable on the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2007(6) SCC 171.
The writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioners as aforesaid. Needless to observe, the police authorities shall ensure that over the dispute between the private parties peace in the locality is not breached and that there is no loss of life and limb.
There shall be no order for costs.
Since no affidavit has been called for from the private respondents, the allegations contained in the writ petition shall not be deemed to have been admitted by the private respondents.
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible.
(DIPANKAR DATTA,J.)