- (1.) The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated January 30, 2012 is seeking the following principal relief: "a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued upon the respondents police authorities, particularly the respondent No.5 to ensure speedy investigation in respect of the direction dated 27.05.2011, passed by the Learned SubDivisional Magistrate, Executive at Bashirhat, North 24-Parganas in M.P. Case No.1083 of 2011, strictly in accordance with law."
(2.) The order dated May 27, 2011 referred to in prayer (a) was passed under s.144 CrPC. It is evident that its statutory period expired long ago. Advocate for the petitioner prays for an order directing the police to take action against the private respondents who are allegedly disturbing the petitioner s possession of the property in question. In my opinion, the petitioner s remedy, if any, was before the Civil and Criminal Courts. The order of the Executive Magistrate under s.144 CrPC is not to be executed by the High Court under art.226. The police do not possess any power to restrain the private respondents from disturbing the petitioner s possession of the property. The allegation of inaction is baseless and unacceptable.
(3.) If the private respondents have committed any offence and the police have decided not to register any FIR, then the petitioner ought to have moved the Criminal Court. 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.;