- (1.) The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated January 24, 2012 is seeking the following principal relief: "a) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the concerned respondents their officer and subordinates specially the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to forthwith provide adequate safety and security to the petitioner and to ensure that the petitioner can discharge his official duty at Mobile Tower situated at Village Panshila, Post Office Deulia, Police Station Kolaghat, District Purba Medinipur by unlocking the lock put up at the Caretaker Room by the private respondent no.4."
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits as follows. For wrongful activities and offences committed by the private respondent, the petitioner appointed by AIRCEL as caretaker of its tower is unable to work. Inspite of his complaint, the officer in charge of the police station concerned has not taken any action against the private respondent. Hence an order should be made directing the police to register an appropriate case and to see that the petitioner can discharge his duties.
(3.) In my opinion, the petitioner's remedy, if any, was before the Civil and Criminal Courts. If the private respondent has been wrongfully preventing him from working as the caretaker appointed by AIRCEL for its tower in question, then he ought to have gone to the Civil Court. Since his allegation is that the private respondent has committed offence and the officer in charge of the police station has committed wrong by not registering an FIR, instead of approaching the High Court under art.226, he ought to have approached the Criminal Court that could consider the question of passing an order under s.156(3) or s.190 CrPC. The worth of the allegations is not to be examined by the Writ Court for deciding whether they make out a case of commission of any cognizable offence. That was to be done by the Criminal Court competent to take cognizance of offence, if any.;