Judgment 1. Both these Writ petitions are taken up together as they relate to same nature of grievances by the petitioners and parties to both the writ petitions are same and similar. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is against the respondent No. 4, Laxmi Narain Sao in Cr. WJC No. 665/2000 and respondent No. 6 in Cr. WJC No. 685/2000. According to the petitioner, he became eye sore of the police personnel of Chautarwa Police Station while he was making pairvi as a carpardaz in respect of one of the parties in Title (Partition) Suit No. 19/94, Habib Mian, in support of whom the petitioner was taking steps, had filed a petition being Misc. Case No. 1/99 against the Officer-in-Charge of Chautarwa Police Station namely Kanhaiya Prasad and an ASI, Bhikhari Singh and they were called in the court by the ACJM, Bagaha and since then the police officials of Chautarwa Police Station, started taking grudge against the petitioner and he has been implicated in many criminal cases such a Chautarwa P.S. Case No. 164/1999 under Section 364-A, IPC, Chautarwa PS Case No. 8/2000 under Section 364, IPC, Chautarwa PS Case No. 38/2000 under Section 376/34, IPC. Chautarwa PS Case No. 56/2000 under Section 307/324/34, IPC and Chautarwa PS Case No. 86/2000 under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is also the contention that such implication has been made by making interpolations in the case diary by the police officials including Laxmi Narain Sao and although Kanhaiya Prasad had been relieved of his duties from Chautarwa Police Station, he remained in the station for doing all mischief. The son of the petitioner, Rabindra Prasad filed a Complaint Case No. 402/C/2000 against Kanhaiya Prasad and others under Sections 147/148/342/347/ 348/331/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and in that case cognizance was taken and accused-persons were summoned. Another complaint case was registered as Complaint Case No. 401 /C/99 against the police personnel of Chautarwa Police Station at the initiation of the peti-tioner and his family members under Sections 147/148/ 149/217/218/307/ 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint filed by Keyamuddin Mian and Jhalim Mian S/o Habib Mian was one of the witnesses which is now pending before the ACJM, Bagaha. In the complaint filed by Keyamuddin Mian and Jhalim Mian S/o Habib Mian was one of the witnesses which is now pending before the ACJM, Bagaha. It is the further case of the petitioner that pressure was created against the petitioner and the complainants of those two complaint cases for withdrawal and there was threatening from the police personnel including Laxmi Narain Sao and Kanhaiya Prasad of false implication of the petitioner and his family members in various criminal cases unless the complaint cases are being withdrawn and accordingly the petitioner and his family members had been falsely implicated in subsequent cases, as mentioned above. In one of the cases although the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court and he was to surrender within the time frame as fixed by this court but in the meantime properties were being attached under Sections 82/83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only to feed for the grudge against the petitioner and his family members, the properties were attached illegally that too without the order of the ACJM, Bagaha which caused immense loss to the petitioner and as such he has also claimed for compensation. 3. The respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 6, Laxmi Narain Sao in the above mentioned writ petitions had filed counter-affidavit and made an attempt to justify the action of the police personnel in the cases lodged against the petitioner and his family members and also the attachment made under Sections 82/83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. From the documents filed along with the counter-affidavit, it could be found that the attachment allegedly issued by the ACJM, Bagaha was not a proper one as the same did not bear the signature of the ACJM, moreover, it appears that at the time when the attachments were issued, there was practically no order of the ACJM to that effect, so according to the petitioner, those attachments were made with ulterior motive. Annexure A/1 is peculiarly written showing the case nos. in three items one being Police Case No. 164/99 another being Police case No. 38/99 but regarding the second case in Column No. 1, the same is vacant. From all these facts on scrutiny this Court also could find that there is some truth in the allegations made by the petitioner and when denial is there from the side of the respondent No. 4. From all these facts on scrutiny this Court also could find that there is some truth in the allegations made by the petitioner and when denial is there from the side of the respondent No. 4. Laxmi Narain Sao. When disputed points were there it was observed by this Court that there must be a judicial enquiry into the matter and again chance was given to the respondents to clarify their position in the circumstances of the case and as the counter-affidavit does not support the documents filed by the respondents themselves and there may be a mere allegation against respondent No. 4, Laxmi narain Sao (respondent No. 6 in Cr WJC No. 685/2000) for filing false affidavit but still then the respondents preferring not to file any further counter-affidavit to clarify the position. Without going into the factual aspects of different cases as per the allegations made and denial being made from the side of the respondents, to come to a justice decision, it is required that a judicial enquiry be made in respect of the cases filed against the petitioner and his family members and also the person for whom the petitioner had made patrvi as Carpardaz to find out the veracity or otherwise of the allegations themselves. In that way the copies of the writ petitions along with the documents, counter-affidavits along with the annexure filed and the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners should be despatched to the District Judge, West Champaran directing him to make a judicial enquiry on all those allegations and counter-allegations and denial being made and such enquiry may be done by the District Judge himself or he may does it through any of his Addl. District Judge and then send the report to this Court within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the papers, as mentioned above. The petitioner is hereby directed to make available all the copies of the documents and papers for sending it to the District Judge concerned within a period of two weeks from this date. Further coercive steps may not be taken in the criminal case filed against the petitioner in the above-mentioned criminal cases as mentioned in paragraph 2 of this order till the judicial enquiry is completed. Further coercive steps may not be taken in the criminal case filed against the petitioner in the above-mentioned criminal cases as mentioned in paragraph 2 of this order till the judicial enquiry is completed. With regard to the attachment made under Section 82/83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the properties of the petitioner, if proper petition is filed by the petitioner, then the same should be enquired into by the ACJM within a period of one month from the date of filing of the petition from the side of the petitioner and if it is found that the attachments were done without any proper order then the properties must be released in favour of the petitioner and at the time of release the petitioner or his Advocate should be allowed to be present to assess whether the properties are in proper condition or not. A report must be prepared at the time of delivery by the ACJM by sending an Officer of the Court for the purpose. The order of the ACJM and the consequential orders thereof should also be sent to the District Judge for making the same to be a part of the enquiry as ordered above. Let the case be listed after six months under the same heading.