- (1.) The petitioner is alleging police inaction in that inspite of information supplied by him police are not taking actions against the private respondents, their men, agents and servants who all have committed various offences punishable under the criminal law of the land and are trying to dispossess him of the property. Counsel submits that the petitioner approached the criminal court with complaint, and that the criminal court directed the police to register FIR, investigate and submit report. According to him, reacting to the various offences committed by the private respondents one after the other, the petitioner is not supposed to file complaints, one after another. His further submission is that taking advantage of the police inaction the private respondents have already dispossessed the petitioner of the property.
(2.) As to the proposition that reacting to the various offences committed inexorably by the private respondents, the petitioner is not supposed to file complaints, one after the other, I am of the view that it is entirely for the petitioner, who has right to prosecute the private respondents for every offence they commit, to decide whether he will file more than one complaint, if the private respondents have committed offences, one after another.
(3.) In the name of police inaction the petitioner cannot ask the high court to make an order under art.226 directing the police to see that the private respondents cannot commit offences repeatedly. An order for the purpose will amount to asking the police to perform the impossible. A person committing an offence can be prosecuted, and in a given case commission of offence can be prevented. But the police cannot prevent some people from committing any offence at all against a particular person.;