Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 175 (PAT)

Dinesh Das v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-24

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this Writ application for issuance of a direction to the police authorities to handover the keys of the rooms which they have locked in course of investigation and not restored the same to the petitioner. 3. An intervention application has been filed by the intervenors, who are some of the accused persons in a case instituted by the petitioner which has led to the present controversy. 4. Counter affidavits have been filed and with the consent of all the parties this application is being heard and being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 5. The petitioner asserts that for over a decade he had been in possession of a piece of land having two rooms constructed thereon from were he used to conduct certain religious rituals. He had established a Math for which people had donated certain lands adjacent to this place as well. It is stated that in July, 2002, the intervenors by a registered sale deed purchased the property in dispute in which the petitioner was residing and performing religious ceremony. On October, 2002 when the petitioner refused to vacate the premises the interveners alongwith other persons came and ransacked the place and threw out the petitioner. The petitioner tried to lodge a case against the interveners and others for their acts and ultimately on intervention of higher police officials after almost one and a half year the case was registered being Sour Bazar P.S. Case no. 23 of 2004, dated 9.2.2004 in respect of the incident of October, 2002. Police investigated the matter and ultimately a chargesheet being chargesheet no. 271/2004, dated 30.11.2004 was submitted against all the accused persons. This itself clearly shows that prima facie, on investigation the allegations of attempting unlawful dispossession of the petitioner by the intervenors- respondents was found to be correct and that this incident took place immediately after the purchase of the property by the intervenors-respondents, who naturally had a cause to take law in their own hands as the petitioner was putting hindrance to their right of possession. 6. It is now admitted in the affidavit, as filed by the respondent no.9 (Superintendent of Police, Saharsa) that in course of investigation the premises was locked by the police and now the keys have been handed over to the Mukhiya, who is said to be the natural person. 6. It is now admitted in the affidavit, as filed by the respondent no.9 (Superintendent of Police, Saharsa) that in course of investigation the premises was locked by the police and now the keys have been handed over to the Mukhiya, who is said to be the natural person. The question is whether the police had any lawful authority to take such an action. Once the police had submitted a chargesheet against the intervenors-respondents accepting the allegation of the petitioner and putting the intervenors-respondents to trial then it has be assumed that it was intervenor-respond- ents who had unauthorisedly interfered with the possession of the petitioner. It is well settled law that a person may have a title to property but it does not follow that he has possession thereof. The case in the present, is similar. The investigating agency including the higher police officers now appeared to have been joined hands with the intervenors-respondents. The entire tenor of the affidavit filed on behalf of Superintendent of Police (respondent no. 9) shows that they are more interested now in accusing the petitioner with all sorts of allegations as they are unable to justify their action in locking the premises and handing over the keys to an alleged natural Mukhiya. No provision of law or any law has been shown to me by which such an action by police can be justified either by the State counsel or by the counsel for the intervenors-respondents. In view of admission on behalf of the Superintendent of Police that it was indeed the police had locked the premises and handed over the keys to the Mukhiya the matter need not be pursued further. As at that time there was no dispute as to who was in possession the keys must be restored to the petitioner who was in possession. I may note here that right to possession as claimed by the intervenors-respondents on basis of sale deed in their favour it does not follow that merely because they had a right to possession they would perform their possession by unlawful means and resorting to unlawful activity. Rule of law must prevail. If the respondents found that petitioner was wrongly occupying their property which they had recently purchased then it was for them for moving an appropriate form for appropriate relief but not to take law into their own hands. Rule of law must prevail. If the respondents found that petitioner was wrongly occupying their property which they had recently purchased then it was for them for moving an appropriate form for appropriate relief but not to take law into their own hands. On the other hand, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Superintendent of Police clearly indicates that now the police is sympathetic with the intervenor-respond-ents as that what has been the concerted and deliberate attempt to show that the petitioner is a bad character person and is not liked by the villagers etc. for getting that the police had found the petitioners case to be true and after investigation submitted a chargesheet against the intervenors-respondents. I just observe that the police has exceeded its jurisdiction in this matter instead of investigating the crime and maintaining law and order they have become party to dispute. This is regretable. If the police had any apprehension of any breach of-peace I am sure that the Superintendent of Police was well conversant (sic- with ?) the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure in this regard and need not be adjudicated by this court, yet no attempts were made to resort to lawful purpose and every one took law into their own hands. 7. In the result, I find that the action of the police in locking the premises and handing over the keys to the alleged natural Mukhiya is a step which is not sanctioned by any law. The possession of petitioner must be restored forthwith and will be maintained with the petitioner till a competent court of jurisdiction passes order. The Superintendent of Police would see that the possession of the premises is at all to the petitioner within a fortnight of service of a copy of this order on him. 8. This application is allowed.