WP(C) 4895/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. DK Saikia, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. T he respondents are represented by Ms. R. Gogoi, the learned Govt. Advocate. 2. The petitioner has a long standing dispute with his neighbours but in th e present case the petitioner claims compensation alleging custodial torture of his son Md. Imran Akand in the Dhing Police Station. On 5.7.2010, an FIR was fil ed by the petitioner against his neighbours, where it was alleged that his neigh bours have started to beat up his son and other family members. But when the pol ice arrived at the spot, the police party arrested the petitioner’s son on the b asis of the complaint lodged by the neighbours and the FIR filed by the constabl e Satram Bora. Thereafter the petitioner’s son Md Arasadul Islam Akand was alleg edly tortured in police custody in the Dhing P.S. The petitioner has enclosed th e medical report and some photographs to show the injuries sustained by the son. 3. However the allegation made against the police is denied in the counter affidavit filed by the S.P., Nagaon (respondent No.4) and it is specifically ave rred that when the police party arrived at the spot to investigate the Dhing P.S . Case No.127/2010, filed by the petitioner against his neighbours, the two grou ps were still fighting with each other and were pelting stones. The police tried to control the situation and in the process, the petitioner’s son Md. Imran Aka nd attacked the constable Satram Bora and the constable had to be shifted to the Dhing FRU Hospital for treatment. Then the assaulted constable filed an FIR lea ding to registration of the Dhing P.S. Case No.125/2010. A separate FIR was also filed by the neighbours leading to registration of the Dhing P.S. Case No.126/2 010. In connection with these two cases, the police arrested Md. Imran Akand and at the time of his arrest, the person had already suffered injuries. The police claim that those injuries were sustained during quarrel between his party and w ith his neighbor Md. Ibrahim Ali and accordingly the custodial torture is denied by the S.P. 4. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that, following completio n of investigation of the Dhing P.S. Case No.125/2010 and the Dhing P.S. Case No .127/2010, the concerned accused were charge sheeted. 5. In order to show that the police version is not believable, Mr. DK Saiki a, the learned counsel refers to the injury report of the Dhing FRU Hospital in respect of the constable Satram Bora to project that he suffered simple injury a nd therefore the counsel tries to compare this with the severe injury suffered b y the petitioner’s son. 6. But what is relevant here is that a group clash between the family membe rs of the petitioner and his neighbours took place on 5.7.2010, which led to fil ing of cross cases by both parties. That apart, a separate case was registered a t the instance of the constable Satram Bora, who too suffered injury during the clash. 7. Whether the petitioner’s son suffered his injuries in police custody or in group clash is not readily discernable and it is difficult to determine the t ruth from the contradictory averments of the parties. The injuries being sustain ed during the group clash is not an impossibility and therefore I am of the cons idered opinion that the claim for compensation for custodial injury can’t be ent ertained by the Writ Court. Consequently this case is found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.