IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16706 of 2009 1. RAM PRAVESH KUMAR S/O SRI DEONARAYAN PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- LIPGANJ SHERGHATI, P.S. SHERGHATI, DISTT.- GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GAYA 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, SHERGHATI, DISTT.- GAYA 4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE SHERGHATI, POLICE STATION, DISTT.- GAYA 5. SHAMBHU PRASAD CHANDRABANSHI S/O LATE SITA RAM CHANDRABANSHI R/O MOHALLA- NARAYAN COLONY, GOLA BAZAR, P.S. SHERGHATI, DISTT.- GAYA ----------- 2. 29.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the locking of his sweet meat shop at the behest of the local police situated over R.S. Plot No. 55/56, R.S. Khata No. 1205 measuring 5 decimals in the north west corner of the house of respondent no. 5. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a tenant in the house of respondent no. 5. There is a dispute going on between them registered as Sherghati P.S. Case No. 6 of 2009. At the behest of respondent no. 5, the Officer Incharge, Sherghati Police Station, District-Gaya has locked up the shop of the petitioner. The petitioner has represented to the Superintendent of Police in this regard on 5.5.2009. There have been proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P.C. between the parties. 2 Counsel for the State prays for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit. The writ application was filed on 1.12.2009, after serving two copies in the office of Advocate General on 26.11.2009. Nearly one year later it has not been considered sufficient by the respondent to file counter affidavit. The Court is not persuaded to adjourn the matter for that purpose. In a civil dispute between the landlord and tenant, the Police has no role to play except in so far as the maintenance of law and order is concerned. Civil matters with regard to possession of the building, tenant premises, ouster from the same etc. are matters reserved for the domain of the civil law to be agitated before the competent Civil Court. Police power cannot be utilized in a democracy to interfere with the civil right of a citizen protected by civil law. The Police may interfere in appropriate matters only to the extent that it has power under the Indian Penal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court in more than one judgment has very strongly deprecated the act of the Police in entering the domain of a civil dispute by imprudent exercise of Police power. The Superintendent of Police, Gaya is directed to examine matters and pass appropriate orders within a maximum period of one week from the date of 3 receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. If the belongings of the petitioner is still inside the shop and there are no orders of a competent Court of law, meaning thereby the petitioner retains physical possession of the tenant premises, the Superintendent of Police shall ensure that the possession of the premises is given to the petitioner, if it has been locked by the Police. This shall be without prejudice to the rights of respondent no. 5 to seek redress under the normal Civil law. If the Superintendent of Police is satisfied that the premises has not been locked up by the Police officer but by the tenant, matters shall remain in the civil domain with which the Superintendent of Police shall not make any interference. The writ application is disposed with the aforesaid directions. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)