P. K. MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of mendamus directing the Crime Branch to investigate into the allegations in the F. I. R. lodged by the petitioner in Kendrapara Police Station and for a direction to the opposite parties, the State Government and its officials to make payment of adequate compensation for their inaction to protect the life and property of the petitioner and his family members etc. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a resident of village Nagapur within P. S. and district Kendrapara, where he has his parental residential house and landed properties etc. The family of the petitioner have their own family Deity namely Sri Radhe Mohan Jee Thakur and his ancestor Bansidhar Mohapatra, who owned considerable landed property, set apart some land out of his own personal property in favour of the Deity. Some of the villagers brought O. A. No. 11-5 of 1974 under Section 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act before the Additional Assistant Commissioner, Endowments for a declaration that the Deity is a public Deity having no hareditary trustee and the landed properties of the Deity are the properties of the Religious Endowment, where the family of the petitioner has no right, title and interest. The case was dismissed on 31-12-1975, where upon the villagers carried one First Appeal bearing F. A. No. 4 of 1976 before the Commissioner of Endowments and ultimately Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 1977 before this Court, which were also dismissed. It is the case of the petitioner that having failed in their attempt to grab the properties of the family of the petitioner, some villagers tried to harass the petitioner and his family in very many ways. About 6 P. M. on 18-10-1995 some of the villagers came in a body to loot the household articles from the house of the petitioner and getting scent of the plan, the petitioner immediately rushed to the Police Station and on his request, the police rushed to the spot, but even in presence of the police, the brother of the petitioner was assaulted and was removed to the Kendrapara Government Hospital for treatment. The brother of the petitioner lodged an F. I. R. in the Kendrapara Police Station, a copy of which is Annexure-4. The brother of the petitioner lodged an F. I. R. in the Kendrapara Police Station, a copy of which is Annexure-4. Further allegation is that the brother of the petitioner submitted an application in the Police Station requesting the Inspector-In-Charge, opposite party No. 6 to depute Policeman to their house since the villagers are making preparation to loot the household articles at night, but in spite of the application, police took no step and remained silent over the issue. It has been alleged that the opposite party No. 6, the Inspector-In-Charge on receipt of the F. I. R. registered the case as P. S. Case No. 358 under Sections 147, 148, 457, 307, 342, 323, 380 and 149 I. P. C. but without taking, up investigation by himself, directed one Sub-Inspector to take up investigation and even though the F. I. R. has been lodged on 19-10-95, the police being influenced by legal politicians did not arrest the accused persons or seize any articles detailed in Aiinexure-6. It is further asserted by the petitioner that alleging inaction by the local police, the entire family of the petitioner including women and children started hunger strike in front of the office of the Collector, opposite party No. 4 and even though the Collector assured on 19-11-95 for giving protection to their life and property, requested them to lift the hunger strike, and accordingly, they lifted the hunger strike, but no action has been taken in accordance with the assurance, in spite of his request to the opposite party No. 3 to intervenein the matter. It is the further case of the petitioner that due to inaction of the police, the petitioner's family members are unable to go to the village and even though the paddy crops in their agricultural field are ripe for harvesting, they apprehend that if no action is taken in the matter, the paddy will be cut and removed by the accused persons named in the F. I. R. The petitioner asserts that the accused persons named in Annexure-6 approached this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3074 of 1995 under Section 438 Cr. P. C. and the Court has been pleased to release 5 out of 27 accused persons on the ground that two of them are women and 3 of them are about 70 years old. Case No. 3074 of 1995 under Section 438 Cr. P. C. and the Court has been pleased to release 5 out of 27 accused persons on the ground that two of them are women and 3 of them are about 70 years old. Inasmuch as, even though undisputedly bail application in respect of others has been rejected, the police is not taking steps to apprehend the others and seize the articles described in Annexure-6. Thus, the petitioner claims that maintenance of law and order being the primary duty of the State and the State and its functionaries having failed effectively to protect the life and properties of the petitioner and his family, a writ may be issued against the State and its functionaries, to entrust the investigation by the Crime Branch and to pay compensation for their negligence and laches. ( 3 ) THE opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit being sworn to by Sri Sushant Kumar Chand, the Inspector-In-Charge of Kendrapara police Station denying the allegations and giving details as to how prompt and effective steps were taken in time on receipt of the F. I. R. lodged by the petitioner on 19-10-95 and in proceeding with the investigation. ( 4 ) HEARD Mr. P. K. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Prusty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite parties. It is asserted in the affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 6 that the petitioner Ashok Kumar Mohapatra and his brother Bhagirathi Mohapatra reported at the Kendrapara Police Station about assault on their person on 18-10-95 at 7. 00 P. M. The Officer-In-Charge, Kendrapara Police Station, after making a Station Diary entry sent the injured persons to the Medical Officer, Kendrapara District Headquarters Hospital vide requisition dated 18-10-95, copies of which are Annexures A/6 and B/6, for medical examination. The Medical Officer, after examing the injured persons, forwarded the Injury Report, copies of which are Annexures C/5 and D/6, which disclose that the medical examination of the injury of petitioner and his brother was conducted between 7. 50 P. M. and 8. 00 P. M. on 16-10-95 on receipt of the F. I. R. dated 19-10-95 at about 1. The Medical Officer, after examing the injured persons, forwarded the Injury Report, copies of which are Annexures C/5 and D/6, which disclose that the medical examination of the injury of petitioner and his brother was conducted between 7. 50 P. M. and 8. 00 P. M. on 16-10-95 on receipt of the F. I. R. dated 19-10-95 at about 1. 00 P. M. , Kendrapara,, P. S. Case No. 358 dated 19-10-95 was registered under Section 147, 148, 457, 307, 342, 323 and 380/149 I. P. C. and the Sub-Inspector of Police Sri A. K. Deurie was directed to take up investigation. It has been indicated in the affidavit that the petitioner had not lodged any written report intimating the preparation of some of the villagers to take away all the movables of their house during that night inasmuch as the brother of the petitioner had never submitted a separate application stated to have been sent to the Police Station, a copy of which is Annexure-5 requesting the Inspector-In-Charge to depute Police Guard apprehending looting of household articles in the night. However, it is revealed from the affidavit that the Investigating Officer examined the petitioner and other witnesses, immediately made spot investigation and seized some materials from the spot, searched the houses of the accused persons, but could not find out any of the accused persons nor any alleged stolen property. Repeated raids were conducted in the petitioner's village and other nearby villages to arrest the accused persons and to seize the stolen articles. However on 17-10-1995 the Investigating Officer, while conducting further raid in village Nagapur, arrested accused Krushna Chandra Pradhan and forwarded him to Court. Subsequently, repeated raids were conducted in the petitioner's village, nearby villages and other probable places like, Kendrapara, Paradeep and Cuttack and in the meantime five accused persons were released on anticipatory bail by the High Court and other accused persons have been released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara. The aforesaid statement made on oath by the opposite party No. 6 with regard to the steps taken in details by the Investigating Agency in the matter has not been controverted by the petitioner, by way of any rejoinder affidavit. The aforesaid statement made on oath by the opposite party No. 6 with regard to the steps taken in details by the Investigating Agency in the matter has not been controverted by the petitioner, by way of any rejoinder affidavit. ( 5 ) ON consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, the materials on record and the affidavit of the Inspector-In-Charge of Kendrapara Police Station giving in details the steps taken by the Investigating Agency pursuant to the F. I. R. lodged by the petitioner, we do not find any cogent reason to hold that the Investigating Agency is either guilty of deliberate negligence or laches in proceeding with the investigation, for which the investigation by the Crime Branch is warranted. Thus, the claim of the petitioner for compensation due to inaction of the opposite parties to protect his life and property is misconceived. ( 6 ) IN that view of the matter, we decline to interfere at this stage. However, in the facts situationof the case, we direct the Superintendent of Police, Kendrapara, opposite party No. 5 and Inspector-In-Charge, Kendrapara Police Station, opposite party No. 6 that in the event the petitioner approached for necessary assistance and the situation so warrants, the Police Authorities shall render all such assistance as warranted under law. ( 7 ) THE writ application is disposed of with the above observation. ( 8 ) SUSANTA CHATTERJI, A. C. J. , I agree. Order accordingly.