JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS,J - (1.) THE petitioners in this WP under art.226 dated March 1, 2011 are seeking the following principal relief: "a) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commending the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take steps in accordance with law and give adequate police protection to the petitioners so as to protect their lives and properties."
(2.) BY three complaints at pp.19-21 the second petitioner (Jamsed Molla) informed the officer in charge of Minakhan police station in North 24-Parganas as follows. He filed a suit against the persons named in the complaints (they are the private respondents in this case) claiming his right over the immovable property in question. During pendency of the suit the defendants therein forcibly started erecting a structure. On his objection the erection work was stopped for the time being. Again the defendants in the suit resumed the erection work. He apprehended that his resistance might lead to breach of peace and tranquility. Information supplied by Jamsed to the officer in charge of the police station was entered by the officer in the general diary. This means that, in the opinion of the officer in charge, the information did not disclose any case of commission of any cognizable offence. In view of the provisions of s.155 CrPC Jamsed was referred to the Magistrate. Now alleging inaction on the part of the officer this WP has been brought; and counsel has argued that when the allegations made in the complaints clearly disclosed a case of commission of cognizable offence, the officer could not refuse to take action; and that, on the facts, it is necessary to exercise power under art.226 for directing the officer to take action.
(3.) IN my opinion, the petitioners' remedy, if any, was before the Criminal Court. The unwritten decision of the officer in charge that allegations made in the complaints did not disclose a case of commission of any cognizable offence cannot be judicially reviewed by the High Court under art.226. Writ power cannot be exercised for directing the officer to reconsider the allegations and decide the question of registering an FIR. Power under art.226 is to be exercised either for examining the worth of the allegations for deciding whether they make out a case of commission of any cognizable offence by the private respondents. That was to be done by the Criminal Court competent to take cognizance of offence, if any. I am, therefore, unable to accept the case that, on the facts, it is necessary to exercise power under art.226. For these reasons, the WP is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.;