w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sunil Deb v/s State of West Bengal

    Writ Petition No. 8714 (W) of 2004 & CAN No. 3278 of 2005

    Decided On, 21 July 2005

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

    For the Appellant: Amitava Mukharjee, Krishnendu Bhattacharjee, Nawin Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent: Keshab Bhattacharjee Debabrata Karan, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.

1. In Compliance with order dated July 08. 2004 made by Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J. Police authority concerned has submitted a report dated July 29, 2004. It shall be kept with the records.

2. Police authority has

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

not supported the allegations made by the Petitioners. I agree with advocate for the Petitioner that conclusion reached by the police authorities who have submitted the report may be wrong. But the question is what relief I can give to the Petitioner in exercise of my writ powers.

3. Advocate for the Petitioners submits that since the second Petitioner was subjected to severe torture and humiliation, I should direct the police to register an FIR and make investigation.

4. In My view, order for these purposes can be made, or rather should be made, only by the competent judicial magistrate. Nothing has been said to me may the Petitioners did not move the court of the judicial magistrate.

5. If they were not satisfied with the manner in which the local police station considered their allegations, they were free to take steps for seeking investigation by the other Investigating agencies. There is nothing before me to show that Petitioners took such steps. Order for the purpose could have been made by the judicial magistrate, had the Petitioners approached such magistrate by filing a complaint.

6. Advocate for the Petitioners says that his clients are roaming around the street since they were dispossessed from their own properties by the 12th Respondent daughter-in-law of the first and second Petitioners and the wife of the third Petitioner.

7. In my view, regarding possession and dispossession of the property, the writ court cannot grant any relief to any of the parties. If the Petitioners or any one of them has been wrongfully dispossessed of their own properties, nothing prevented them from approaching the competent court. For reasons known only to them, instead of approaching such court, they have approached the writ court that cannot decide any question connected with possession and dispossession of the properties.

8. For these reasons I am unable to give any relief to the Petitioners in this case. Hence I dismiss the writ petition.

9. As a result the miscellaneous application (CAN No. 3278 of 2005) filed by the Petitioners for an order directing the police to submit a report, shall be deemed to be dismissed.

10. There shall be no order for costs both in the writ petition and in the application.

11. Urgent certified xerox copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties, if applied for.
O R