IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14551 of 2010 1. MOBIN ALAM @ MADAN MIYAN S/O LATE MADHIB SHAH R/O VILL.- SIMANDRA, P.S.- SIKANDRA, DISTT.- JAMUI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR 3. D.G.P., PATNA, BIHAR 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMUI, DISTT.- JAMUI 5. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, JAMUI 6. CIRCLE OFFICER, SIKANDRA, CIRCLE OFFICE, DISTT.- JAMUI 7. S.P., JAMUI, DISTT.- JAMUI 8. DY. S.P., JAMUI, DISTT.- JAMUI 9. OFFICER IN CHARGE, SIKANDRA, P.S.- SIKANDRA, DISTT.- JAMUI 10. BRAHMDEO KESHARI S/O BUDHAN KESHRI R/O VILL.- SIKANDRA, P.S.- SIKANDRA, DISTT.- JAMUI ----------- 2. 28.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner appears to be having a private dispute with private respondent no. 10. The dispute relates to a house property. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the local Police at the behest of respondent no. 10 has forcibly entered the premises, locking certain portions and demolished certain portions. He places reliance in support of the same on Annexure-3 dated 31.10.2009 to urge that it was the Police who was acting in excess of power in a private dispute. Reliance is also placed on pleadings in Paragraph-5 that the officer incharge Sikandra Police Station was acting at the behest of private respondent no. 10. The submission therefore is that the Police cannot interfere in a purely private civil 2 dispute more particularly by intrusion into the property of a citizen without authority of law. The writ petition was filed on 31.8.2010 after serving two copies in the office of Advocate General. More than six months later the official respondents seem to be in no hurry to file a counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the State from Annexure-3 dated 31.10.2009 submits that the Circle Officer had only called for a report from the Officer incharge, Sikandra Police Station and directed him to ensure that peace and tranquility is not disturbed. In a private dispute between citizens, when both of them have remedies available to them under the Civil law, the Police has no authority to interfere unless there be any competent orders of a Court of law. If the dispute takes a criminal camouflage there have to be appropriate orders instituting a case and investigation followed by preliminary orders to interfere under provisions of the Penal Code or the Cr.P.C. as the case may be on orders by a competent authority. This aspect has been emphasized by this Court in more than one case of the present nature and the Court has deprecated the interference of the Police in purely civil matters between private parties. Let the petitioner represent before the Superintendent of Police, Jamui with regard to his 3 grievance that the officer incharge, Sikandra Police Station, was unlawfully intruding into a purely private dispute. The Superintendent of Police is required to hear the concerned parties and then pass a reasoned and speaking order. If he comes to the conclusion that without any authority of law the officer incharge, Sikandra Police Station has intruded into the private dispute, necessary consequential orders shall be passed by the Superintendent of Police restoring status quo ante existing before any action was taken by the officer incahrge. If the officer incharge had acted in pursuance of any order of a competent authority exercising statutory powers or a Court of law, the Superintendent of Police should be at liberty to consider the same. If the officer incharge acted without authority of law any action directed by the Superintendent of Police shall not prejudice private respondent no. 10 or any other person from instituting appropriate proceeding in a competent Court of law which shall have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)