Sweety Kumari vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Mrs. Ritu Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf

of the respondent-State.

This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to

COVID-19 pandemic.

Mrs. Ritu Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that so far the court-fee is concerned that has been transmitted

online today itself. She submits that the surviving defects shall be removed within a week.

This matter was listed today on a mention showing the urgency that the land of the petitioner is being grabbed by the land mafias. In the writ petition, a

prayer is made for lodging the F.I.R which is not being registered by the police. A prayer is also made to demarcate the land of the petitioner which

was purchased in the name of mother of the petitioner by a registered sale-deed dated 23.12.1987.

Mrs. Ritu Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner tried to lodge the F.I.R but the concerned police station is not

registering the F.I.R. He submits that on e-mail of Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi this request was again made on 15.05.2020, inspite of that,

the F.I.R has not been lodged. By way of referring to paragraph no.17 of the writ petition, she submits that the persons' name disclosed in paragraph

no.7 of the writ petition are continuing with the construction work by saying that they have purchased the said piece of land. The registered sale-deed

in the name of mother of the petitioner is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner is having

the alternative remedy under sections 154 and 156 of the Cr.P.C.

It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the writ petition but it is well settled that if there is alternative remedy, the High Court should

not ordinarily enter into that and on this principle the High Court generally restraint itself in passing the order. Seeing the extraordinary situation which

has been brought to the knowledge of the Court, the Court will not be a mute expectator. There is no doubt that the law and order situation is the State

subject matter and the Court has nothing to do with that but at the same time if an officer of the Court is being harassed like this, the Court is bound to

interfere. It is unfortunate that inspite of written complaint filed by the petitioner, the Officer Incharge of Ratu Police Station has not registered the

F.I.R who is respondent no.7 in this writ petition. In the case of “Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.†reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, it has been held by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court that registration of the F.I.R is mandatory under section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a

cognizable offence, no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such a situation. The nature of the allegation made in the writ petition, it is very unfortunate

that for the officer of the Court an F.I.R has not been registered.

The respondent no.5, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi shall ensure of lodging of the F.I.R forthwith.

In view of the allegations made in the writ petition, the respondent nos.5 and 7 are directed to immediately take steps for stopping the work of

construction which is going on in the Plot No.25, Mauza-Gutuwa, Khata No.174, Rakwa-20 decimals of the petitioner subject to the writ petition. The

respondent nos.5 and 7 shall also ensure the compliance of the order of this Court forthwith and will report by tomorrow by 10:30 A.M.

This Court is conscious of the fact that Senior Superintendent of Police is having a vast responsibility for maintaining the law and order but in the

compelling situation this order is being passed.

Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State shall take instruction in the matter and will file the counter

affidavit within two weeks.

At this stage, the Court is not appointing the Committee Members for inquiring into the matter and for apprising the Court and that will be considered

after the affidavit of the respondent State.

Let this matter be communicated to the respondent nos.5 and 7, the learned Advocate General and learned counsel for the petitioner in course of the

day.

List this matter tomorrow i.e. 04.08.2021 at 10:30 A.M.