Police directed to take prompt action on FIR and complaints regarding continuous harassment and threats following a civil decree.

The petitioners, an elderly couple (one being paralyzed and the other retired), are the recorded owners of land in Village Binjhara, District Korba.

They obtained a civil decree for declaration of title and possession against respondents No. 3 to 6 on 05.02.2024; however, the respondents continued to illegally encroach upon the land and dismantle boundary walls.

Despite a demarcation report, an FIR lodged on 19.03.2026, and preventive proceedings initiated under Sections 126(2) and 135(3) of the BNSS, the petitioners alleged that the respondents continued to extend life threats and intimidation.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus for police protection and monetary compensation of Rs. 1 crore.

1. Whether the court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the State to ensure the safety and peaceful possession of the petitioners following the failure of lower authorities to act on existing complaints.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and directions for the punishment of the private respondents in a writ proceeding.

Statutory obligations of the police under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), specifically regarding the duty to act upon a First Information Report (FIR) and maintain public peace through preventive measures under Sections 126(2) and 135(3).

While the High Court can direct authorities to perform their legal obligations, the enforcement of civil decrees and criminal prosecution must follow the prescribed statutory procedures.

The court observed that the dispute originated from a civil matter regarding land ownership, which had already been adjudicated in favor of the petitioners by a civil court.

While the petitioners sought extraordinary reliefs such as massive compensation and specific punishments, the court focused on the failure of the administrative machinery to provide security despite the registration of an FIR and an Istagasa.

The court reasoned that since an FIR had already been lodged on 19.03.2026, the grievance of the petitioners would be appropriately addressed by directing the police to perform their statutory duties strictly in accordance with the law.

The court emphasized that the police are under a "legal obligation" to consider any additional complaints to protect the vulnerable petitioners from persistent harassment.

The police are legally obligated to act upon any additional reports or complaints submitted by the petitioners against respondents No. 3 to 6 to ensure their safety.

No specific order was passed regarding the prayer for monetary compensation.