IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CrWJC No 342 of 2009 Punit Jain, son of Sri Jitendra Kumar Jain, resident of 307, Swikriti Apartment, S P Verma Road, P S – Kotwali, Dist – Patna -Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 Subdivisional Magistrate, Patnacity 3 Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna 4 Officer-in-Charge of Bypass Police Station, Patna 5 Janardan Thakur 6 Bikrama Thakur, 7 Bidya Sagar, 5,6 & 7 are sons of late Sita Ram Thakur 8 Bhim Thakur, son of Lal Mohan Thakur, 5, 6, 7 & 8 are residents of Mohalla – Ganauli, P S – Simri, District – Buxar -Respondents ----------- 3 06.10.2009 The petitioner is a Power of Attorney Holder in respect of a land situated at Mauza Pahari under Bypass (Agamkuan), Patna appertaining to Khata No 626, Plot No 718. He was granted this Power of Attorney by one Shankar Datta who had purchased the same by a registered sale deed dated 15.07.1998 from Bikrama Thakur, Sheomuni Thakur, Jitan Thakur, Janardan Thakur and Bhim Thakur. The said Shankar Datta was in possession and has handed over the possession to the petitioner. Petitioner alleges that when petitioner started constructing the boundary wall on the said land, disturbance was created by Shankar Datta’s said vendors and in league with police, a Section 144 CrPC proceeding was initiated against the petitioner who was made second party. The said proceedings were taken up by the Subdivisional Magistrate, Patna and after hearing the parties, it was dropped as against the petitioner and confirmed as against the first party who were the said vendors of the Shankar Datta. The said vendors of Shankar Datta have already filed a suit in the Civil Court but, admittedly, there is no injunction or any restraint order in that suit. The 2 vendors aforesaid then filed an application in terms of Section 145 CrPC. The learned Subdivisional Magistrate also dismissed the said application clearly noticing that the persons creating trouble were none else than the persons who had already sold the land to Shankar Datta under whose authority, the petitioner was acting. He also directed the parties to approach the completent Civil Court for any relief. No order has been obtained from Civil Court still inspite of these events, petitioner is not being permitted to construct his boundary wall. Petitioner asserts that the hindrance is because of connivance of Officer-in-charge of Patna Bypass Police Station, Patna in connivance with the said vendors of Shankar Datta. The writ application is for protection. In my view, once the Subdivisional Magistrate has already passed orders making the restraint order absolute against the said vendors of Shankar Datta, they already having filed a suit but having not obtained any order of injunction, ordinarily the petitioner should have no apprehension in the matter. In case petitioner finds that the Officer-in-charge of Patna Bypass Police Station is in any way conniving with others, petitioner’s remedy would be to approach the City Superintendent of Police, Patna in that matter who, it is expected, would immediately look into the matter and take appropriate action. With this observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)