Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Aniswar Rahaman@ Amisar Rahaman vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 9 January, 2012
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas.
W.P. No. 21244 (W) of 2011
Aniswar Rahaman@ Amisar Rahaman
v.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr Kishore Mukherjee and Ms Manasi Roy, advocates, for the petitioner. Mr
Anindya Kumar Mitra, Advocate-General, with Mr Subrata Biswas, advocate, for
the State.
Heard on: January 09, 2012.
Judgment on: January 09, 2012.
The Court: - The petitioner in this WP under art.226 is alleging that the
Superintendent of Police, Hooghly and the officer in charge of Balagarh police
station in Hooghly have not taken any action on the basis of his compliant
against the private respondents.
In the complaint dated November 9, 2011 the petitioner alleged that when he wanted to erect boundary walls around his own land, the private respondents, local hooligans, illegally demanded money. Though in the complaint he did not say anything regarding the Goondas Act, 1923, he has stated a case in the WP that the police were under an obligation to take steps under the Goondas Act, 1923.
Mr Advocate-General has rightly pointed out that the WP seeking order under the Goondas Act, 1923 is not maintainable at all, for the petitioner never submitted any representation to the District Magistrate. Counsel for the petitioner finds little to say in reply. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under the Goondas Act, 1923.
As to the allegation of inaction on the part of the Superintendent of Police and the officer in charge of the local police station, I am of the view that when the police decided not to register any FIR, instead of approaching the High Court under art.226 alleging police inaction, the petitioner ought to have approached the Criminal Court.
He was also free to examine the question of applying under s.147 CrPC. The worth of the allegations made in the complaint is not to be examined by the 2 Writ Court for deciding whether they make out a case of commission of any cognizable offence. That was to be done by the Criminal Court competent to take cognizance of offence, if any.
For these reasons, the WP is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.) ss.