Dismissed¶27

Kumari Jyoti Sahay v. the State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

Patna HC1 Apr 2024CR. WJC/509/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, CR. WJC No.509 of 2024, decided 01-04-2024 by Bibek Chaudhuri, J. Keywords: writ petition dismissed; recovery of possession; suit under Section 6 Specific Relief Act efficacious remedy; trespass; forcible possession of ground floor; police inaction; PS Kadam Kuan; omnibus and vague complaint; theft allegation lacking details; liberty to file fresh complaint; private respondent Abhay Shankar Deokuliar; petitioner Kumari Jyoti Sahay.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate complaint against the wrong-doer before the Police Authority; on such filing, the Police Authority shall take necessary step in accordance with law. ¶27

Kumari Jyoti Sahay Vs the State of Bihar through the… — Specific Performance | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the police officers attached to Police Station Kadam Kuan failed to take action on the petitioner's complaint against private respondent No. 7, who allegedly took forcible possession of the ground floor of her house with police assistance. +2 more

¶21

Court's answer

Dismissal of the writ petition shall not dis-entitle the petitioner from filing an appropriate complaint against the wrong-doer before the Police Authority, and on such filing the Police Authority shall take necessary steps in accordance with law.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Even if the petitioner's case is believed at its face value, the efficacious remedy for recovery of possession of the ground floor is a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, not the present writ petition.

¶22

Key takeaways

On the basis of the omnibus and vague complaint dated 9th February 2024, in which details of the alleged stolen property were not stated, it is not possible for the police to take any action against private respondent No. 7 for theft of the petitioner's property.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Criminal Writ Jurisdiction) by Kumari Jyoti Sahay against State of Bihar authorities and private respondent Abhay Shankar Deokuliar, alleging that officers of Police Station Kadam Kuan assisted the private respondent, described as a rank trespasser, in taking forcible possession of the ground floor of her house and failed to act on her complaint dated 9th February 2024 to the Senior Superintendent of Police alleging theft of her valuables. Held (Bibek Chaudhuri, J): even if the petitioner's case is believed at face value, the efficacious remedy for recovery of possession of the ground floor is a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act; the complaint's allegations of theft were absolutely omnibus and vague, with no details of the alleged stolen property stated, so the police could not act on it for theft. Finding no merit, the Court summarily dismissed the writ petition, while clarifying that dismissal shall not dis-entitle the petitioner from filing an appropriate complaint before the Police Authority, which shall then take necessary steps in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.509 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Patna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Kumari Jyoti Sahay, Daughter Of Dr. Ram Shankar Prasad Resident Of House No 430, Jyoti Niketan, Road No. 6c, Rajendra Nagar, P.S. - Kadam Kuan, District - Patna, Bihar

¶5

... ... Petitioner/S

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna Bihar

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Dept. Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna Bihar

¶9

The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Patna, Bihar Bihar

¶10

The District Magistrate, Patna, Bihar Bihar

¶11

The Senior Superintendent Of Police, Patna, Bihar Bihar

¶12

The Officer-In-Charge, Police Station - Kadam Kuan, Patna, Bihar Bihar

¶13

Abhay Shankar Deokuliar Son Of Late Mr. Baban Prasad Resident Of House Of Dr. Ak Agarwal, Road No. 6c, Rajendra Nagar, P.S. - Kadam Kuan, District - Patna, Bihar - 800016

¶14

... ... Respondent/s

¶15

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amit Kumar, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr.AG ======================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶17

2 01-04-2024

¶18

The petitioner has grievance not only against Private Respondent No. 7 but also against the Respondent No. 6, i.e., the Officer In-charge, Police Station- Kadam Kuan and other police officers attached to the said police station, to the effect that the said police officers and members of the police force attached to Police Station- Kadam Kuan assisted the Private Respondent No. 7, who is a rank trespasser and is in forcible possession of the ground floor of the house of the

¶19

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.509 of 2024(2) dt.01-04-2024 2/3

¶20

petitioner.

¶21

It is also alleged that in spite of making a complaint, the police did not take any action against the private respondent. The private respondent has also removed household articles and other valuables of the petitioner from the ground floor of the subject building. Taking advantage of old age of the petitioner, the private respondent has taken over illegal possession of the ground floor of the subject building.

¶22

Having heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that even if the case of the petitioner is believed in its face value, efficacious relief of recovery of possession of the ground floor by the petitioner lies in filing a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

¶23

The learned Advocate for the petitioner draws my attention to Annexure P-3 being a complaint dated 9^th of February, 2024 submitted by the petitioner to the Senior Superintendent of Police. It is pointed out by him that the petitioner has alleged that the said trespasser has been continuing his criminal activities, damaging her property and her several costly items and boxes have been removed and stolen by him. The said allegation is absolutely omnibus and

¶24

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.509 of 2024(2) dt.01-04-2024 3/3

¶25

vague. Details of the alleged stolen property have not been stated in the said complaint dated 9^th of February, 2024.

¶26

On the basis of such complaint/representation, it is not possible for the police to take any action against the Private Respondent No. 7 for theft of the property of the petitioner.

¶27

Therefore, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition and accordingly, writ petition is summarily dismissed.

¶28

However, dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not dis-entitle the petitioner to file appropriate complaint against the wrong-doer before the Police Authority and on filing of such appropriate complaint, the Police Authority shall take necessary step in accordance with law.

¶29

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶30

uttam/-

¶31

Kumari Jyoti Sahay v. the State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Jyoti Sahay v. the State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Animesh Kumar Vs the State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

Sahdeo Gupta Vs The State of Bihar

Vijay Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Bihar through the Collector, Purnea

Rashid Imam Khan @ Md. Rashid Imam Khan Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Rehana Khatoon @ Rihana Begum Vs Tasleem Miya

Vagisha Kumari @ Khushboo Vs Amresh Kumar