Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1388 (PAT)

Sangeeta Singh v. State of Bihar

2017-11-01

BIRENDRA KUMAR

body2017
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to provide adequate security and protection to the life and property of the petitioner which is at stake at the hands of respondent No.7 Nutan Singh. 3. Respondent No.7 in her detailed counter affidavit has specifically stated that petitioner is her Nanad and there is property dispute. The petitioner has already filed Partition Suit No.36 of 2013 for getting share in her father’s property though joint family property was already partitioned in the year 2004 itself and at that time the daughter had no property right. 3A. The State-respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that there is dispute for property between the parties. 4. Considering the nature of dispute and nature of relationship between the parties, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to move appropriate District Level Security Committee for needful if so advised. 5. Further prayer is for restoration of possession in favour of the petitioner on the ground floor of the disputed house. 6. Contention of the respondent is that she was not in possession of the said house and the Civil Court is competent to take care of this issue where partition suit is pending. Hence, this writ Court should not interfere in the disputed question of fact. 7. I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. Considering the pendency of the civil suit and the remedy to the petitioner thereat, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction to the petitioner to get her possession restored. 9. Next prayer is for direction to the respondents to institute a criminal case against respondent Nos.6 and 7, who are Officer-in-Charge, Sultanganj P.S. and Bhabhi of the petitioner respectively as they allegedly thrown out the petitioner from the possession of the said house and disrupted supply of electricity and water. 10. The aforesaid fact has been denied by the respondent. Hence, the same is a disputed question of fact and this writ Court cannot go into that. Accordingly, this writ application stands dismissed as devoid of any merit. ?