"In my considered opinion, this writ petition is wholly misconceived. The petitioner has not impleaded the persons, who have allegedly tried to encroach into the lands in question. If the possession of the petitioner is sought to be interfered with by any person, he is left with two remedies in law. If such interference constitutes an offence, the petitioner is entitled to file a criminal complaint before the police. If the petitioner’s civil rights are violated by such interference, he is entitled to approach the competent civil court to protect his possession or for recovery thereof. If on a complaint made by the petitioner, the police find that an offence is committed, they are under legal obligation to prosecute the offenders. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court the first information report registered on 26.11.2009 against certain persons named therein. To the extent of this complaint, it is open to the petitioner to pursue with respondent No.2. As regards the relief claimed by the petitioner for giving police protection, in my opinion, he is not entitled to such a relief. As noted above if the petitioner’s civil rights are sought to be defeated, he is entitled to approach the competent Court of law for appropriate relief. In the absence of a direction, decree or order passed by the competent Court, the police cannot be permitted to meddle with the civil disputes between the private parties.
