IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.885 of 2007 SHIV NANDAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 21.10.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner had earlier made two prayers namely for a direction to respondent no.4 to submit charge sheet in Mufassil P.S. Case No.16 of 2007, and for a direction to the respondent-Police not to register any false case at the instance of Sandhya Devi wife of Rudra Narayan Singh who had filing large number of criminal cases against the petitioner and his family members on account of land dispute. As charge sheet has been submitted, the petitioner confines his prayer to the second relief only. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the petitioner has land dispute with his neighbour Rudra Narayan Singh and a Title Suit No. 14 of 2002 between them is pending in the court below. He submits that in cases where there is land dispute particularly between a family members or neighbour or a co-villager any criminal case against any of the parties may not be registered on mere asking of the same. He submits that in such cases already a number of cases has been filed against each other and as such it would be appropriate that the police should make a preliminary enquiry first and then register a case if necessary. In this respect he relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Singh Katoch Vs Chandigarh Admn.and Others,(2007)10 SCC 69. Learned counsel for the State submits that under section 154 - 2 - Cr.P.C. the police is bound to register a case if the allegation is disclosed a cognizable offence. The facts as disclosed in the writ petition show that the petitioner has land dispute between his neighbour Raudra Naryan Singh and in paragraph 5 of the writ petition it has been stated that as many as six cases have been filed against him and his family members, at the behest of aforesaid Rudra Narayan Singh. He submits that some cases have been filed as the other side nursed grievances against him. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this court for the present is not going into the merit of the dispute between the parties. It is well settled that the right of a person to enjoy usufruct of a property is a civil right and if such right is obstructed by other co-sharers or his neighbour or a villager then such right should be enforced by taking recourse to the remedies under the civil laws. In this respect, this court finds it expedient to reproduce the relevant extract of paragraph 8 of the judgment in the case of Rajindra Singh Katoch (Supra) which reads as under: “8.Although the officer in charge of a police station is legally bound to register a first information report in terms of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the allegations made by them give rise to an offence which can be investigated without obtaining any permission from the Magistrate concerned, the same by itself, however, does not take away the right of the competent officer to make a preliminary enquiry, in a given case, in order to find out as to whether the first information sought to be - 3 - KHAN lodged had any substance or not…….” However, if an act committed is out and out a criminal act and discloses a cognizable offence, the same would not preclude a Police Officer from registering a case as provided under section 154 Cr.P.C. Thus, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of observations made above as well as decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Singh Katoch Vs Chandigarh Admn.and Others,(2007)10 SCC 69. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai. (S.P.Singh,J)