Disposed¶28

Surendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Home Police Department, Government Of Bihar, Old

Patna HC12 Sept 2025CR. WJC/483/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: compensation for loss and damages; extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction; alternative remedy before competent court; security to petitioner and family; Sri Raj Kishore Singh, then S.D.P.O. Barh; closure of three pulse mills; departmental proceeding; stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and censure; transfer from Barh in 2013; Patna High Court; CR. WJC No.483 of 2017; writ application disposed (12-09-2025).

What did the court decide?

With the aforesaid observation, the writ application was disposed; the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue his compensation claim through an alternative remedy before the competent court in accordance with law. ¶28

Surendra Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Home Police Department, Government Of Bihar, Old — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the loss and damages caused to him by respondent no. 7 (the then S.D.P.O., Barh), including losses arising from the closure of his three pulse mills, and whether such compensation can be granted in this Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

This Court is of the opinion that the compensation for loss and damages cannot be granted in the facts of the present case (sentence completed across the page break at paras. 4-5).

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is given liberty to take recourse to the alternative remedy before the competent court for his claim of compensation for the loss and damages in accordance with law.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.), Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.483 of 2017, decided 12-09-2025. Petitioner Surendra Prasad sought appropriate security for himself and his family members and compensation for loss and damages allegedly caused by Sri Raj Kishore Singh, the then S.D.P.O., Barh, whose alleged high-handedness had led to the closure of the petitioner's three pulse mills. On the petitioner's complaint, a departmental proceeding had resulted in major punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and censure upon respondent no. 7, who had also been transferred from Barh in 2013. The State and respondent no. 7 jointly submitted that compensation could not be granted in the Court's extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. The Court held that in the facts of the present case compensation for loss and damages could not be granted, gave the petitioner liberty to take recourse to an alternative remedy before the competent court for his compensation claim in accordance with law, and disposed of the writ application.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.483 of 2017

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District-

¶3

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

¶4

Surendra Prasad Son of Late Ram Chandra Sah, Resident of MohallaSalempur, Gola Road, P.S.- Barh, District- Patna.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Home Police Department, Government Of Bihar, Old

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Home Police Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

¶9

The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Patna.

¶11

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna.

¶12

The Additional Superintendent of Police, Barh, Patna.

¶13

¶14

Sri Raj Kishore Singh, the then S.D.P.O., Barh.

¶15

The Officer Incharge Barh Police Station, Barh, Patna.

¶16

... ... Respondent/s

¶17

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amar Shakti For the State : Mr. Arvind Kumar, AC to Ex-GA 9 For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Ram Pravesh Nath Tiwari ======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶19

21 12-09-2025 1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 7.

¶20

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed this criminal writ application for providing appropriate security to the petitioner and his family members and further to award compensation for the loss and damages caused to the petitioner by the

¶21

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.483 of 2017(21) dt.12-09-2025 2/3

¶22

respondent no. 7, the then S.D.P.O., Barh. It has further been submitted that three pulse mills of the petitioner has been closed due to the highhandedness of the respondent no. 7 and the petitioner is entitled for compensation for loss and damages of his business. On the complaint of the petitioner against the respondent no. 7, a departmental proceeding was initiated by the police authorities and major punishment has been award to the respondent no. 7 of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and censure.

¶23

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State as well as respondent no. 7 jointly argued that the relief of compensation for loss and damages may not be granted by this Court in its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. The respondent no. 7 was awarded punishment due to some irregularity in service of notice upon the petitioner. The respondent no. 7 had also been transferred from Barh to some other place in the year 2013 itself.

¶24

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned and taking into consideration the nature of prayer made in the writ application, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation for loss and damages cannot be granted in

¶25

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.483 of 2017(21) dt.12-09-2025 3/3

¶26

the facts of the present case.

¶27

Accordingly, the petitioner is given liberty to take recourse to the alternative remedy before the competent court for his claim of compensation for the loss and damages in accordance with law.

¶28

With the aforesaid observation, this writ application is disposed.

¶29

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)

¶30

Prabhakar Anand/-

¶31

U √

Surendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Home Police Department, Government Of Bihar, Old

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Home Police Department, Government Of Bihar, Old

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjib Kumar Verma Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Raj Kumar Mahto Vs The Bihar Agricultural University and Ors.

Rekha Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Amit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Golu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Siraj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar