IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.665 of 2007 Madhu Kumari wife of Ashok Kumar Thakur @ Bhola Thakur, resident of Village-Patahi, P.S. Sadar, District Muzaffarpur …Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 3. The Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur 5. The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur 6. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran at Motihari 7. The Officer-in-Charge of Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S., Distt. Muzaffarpur 8. Sri Jai Nandan Singh,A.S.I. of Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S.,Distt.Muzaffarpur …Respondents ----------- 7 26.2.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to make enquiry regarding illegal action of respondents 7 and 8 whereby they entered the premises of the petitioner and seized all articles behind her back. There is a further prayer to award compensation against the concerned respondents. The case of the petitioner in brief is that there was a family partition being Partition Suit No.573 of 2004 of the court of Sub Judge Ist, Muzaffarpur. In the aforesaid Partition suit the suit premises in question was allotted to the share of the petitioner vide order and decree dated 11.1.2005 and 19.1.2005 respectively, as contained in Annexure-1 series. The petitioner’s son namely Mukul Thakur, who is no more alive, was made an accused in Raxaul P.S.Case No. 98 of 2005 under sections 399, 402,489© of the Penal Code and section 25(1-b) of the Arms Act. The son of the petitioner was granted bail in which the petitioner was a bailer. Thereafter the petitioner’s son absconded and - 2 - as such the Chief Judicial Magistrate issued show cause to the petitioner as to why the bail bond be not forfeited. In the meantime, processes under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. was issued and some of the properties of the petitioner were seized. The contention of the petitioner is that seizure of her suit properties by the police in execution of process under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against her son Mukul Thakur was wholly illegal. It was further contended that the aforesaid property was allotted to the share of the petitioner vide Partition Suit No.573 of 2004 and as such the same was not the property of the accused and these could not have been attached under section 83 Cr.P.C. The further contention of the petitioner is that the police was well aware that the house belonged to the petitioner as would appear from a report of the police of Sadar P.S., Muzaffarpur itself as contained in Annexure-2 and 2/1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the property has now been released in favour of the petitioner, she is entitled to compensation, as the police was knowing fully well that the attached property belonged to her and not to the son of the petitioner. Learned State counsel relying upon the statements made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit submits that in fact the police was not aware that the property was assigned to the share of the petitioner by a partition suit. He submits that the father-in-law of the petitioner was present at the time of attachment and he did not produce any paper in support of the attachment. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going - 3 - KHAN through the materials on record, it appears that the house in question which was attached in a proceeding under section 83 Cr.P.C. was allotted to the share of the petitioner in a Partition Suit No.573 of 2007 of the court of Sub Judge, Muzaffarpur. As per section 83 Cr.P.C. only the properties of absconding accused can be attached under the aforesaid provisions and not of any one else if it so appears prima facie from the record itself. In case such properties are attached deliberately knowing fully well that it does not belong to the accused, aggrieved person is entitled to compensation in an appropriate application before an appropriate court. In the instant case the State in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit stated that it was not aware that the properties belonged to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the Muzaffarpur police was well aware of the aforesaid fact as in one of the case it did not attach the property. In such situation, in my view, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to raise her plea of compensation before appropriate Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)