IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13340 of 2010 Dheeraj Singh @ Dhiru S/O Sri Ramesh Chandra Gupta, resident of Mohalla Salimpur Ahara, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna, at present resident of 1st floor, Sumitra Sadan, Janak Kishore Road, Kadam Kuan, P.S.- Kadam Kuan in the town and district of Patna …………… Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna 3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Patna 4.The Officer in charge Kadam Kuam Police Station in town & District of Patna 5.Rakesh Kumar Sinha, son of Late Rajendra Kumar Prasad, resident of Sumitra Sadan, Janak Kishore Road, Kadam Kuan, P.S.- Kadam Kuan in two & District of Patna. …………. Respondents ----------- 7. 11/05/2011 This application has been filed by the private respondent of Cr.W.J.C.No.95 of 2010 for modification of the order dated 8.2.2010 passed in the said case. The orders passed by this Court in the said criminal writ are annexed as Annexures- 1, 2 and 3. From Annexure-1, it appears that on the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on 8.2.2010, this Court found that as the petitioner’s grievance was in respect of forcible locking of the premises and denying him right to passage by respondent no.5. Hence, it was observed that the matter required an urgent enquiry by the police officials and in case the grievance of the petitioner was found to be correct, steps 2 required to be taken so that residential premises of the petitioner was unlocked and he was allowed to live there peacefully. Therefore, learned counsel for the State was directed to seek instructions from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna as well as Officer Incharge of Kadam Kuan Police Station and file counter affidavit. The matter was thereafter adjourned for the purpose. It appears that after one adjournment, counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the official respondents submitting a report that the premises of the petitioner had got unlocked and petitioner had been inducted in the premises. In view of the counter affidavit, on 4.3.2010 learned counsel for the petitioner withdrew the writ application. Learned counsel for the present petitioner (who was respondent no.5 in the criminal writ application) submits that, on factual aspects, some wrong submissions were advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner, on account of which an impression got created that the writ petitioner was forcibly ousted from his peaceful possession of the ground floor of the building. He submits that the 3 fact is that the premises have two gates, one for use of respondent no.5, who resides on the first floor of the building and another for the writ petitioner, who resides on the ground floor. The writ petitioner has closed his gate and had constructed a garage and rented it out and is trying to use the gate which was for exclusive use of respondent no.5. In view of this factual dispute, this Court by order dated 7.7.2010 requested learned counsels for the parties to jointly visit the premises to find out actual physical features and assist this Court. Learned counsels visited the place and they submit that in fact two gates are there. However, one gate is actually closed and a garage has been constructed and has been let out which leaves only one gate to be used by both the parties. Learned counsels also inform this Court that civil suits are pending with regard to dispute in respect of right, title and interest in the building and he land in question. In that view of the matter, it will not be appropriate for this Court to pass any 4 order in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the use of the property in any manner. However, this Court observes that the order dated 8.2.2010, which was interim in nature, was passed only on the stand of the writ petitioner before this Court. It is made clear that the said order was neither final nor did it create any right or equity in favour of the writ petitioner in respect of occupation, use or claim of title in the building or the property or right of access through the gate. Obviously, any action taken by the police in the light of the said order shall also not create any right or equity in favour of the writ petitioner. This matter has to be essentially decided by the civil court in accordance with law for which parties are at liberty to take steps. This application is disposed of. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)