Police must prevent unlawful interference; law-and-order concerns alone do not justify withholding protection.

The petitioner sought police protection to open and run “Angala Eswari Textiles Shop,” relying on a registered sale deed dated 3 June 2024, a patta and his asserted possession of the property

He alleged that the private respondents obstructed him and threatened him, claiming that they were owed money by the deceased former owner.

During a police enquiry, the parties allegedly agreed that the private respondents would purchase the shop for Rs. 47 lakhs within 90 days, failing which the petitioner could operate it without obstruction.

In an earlier writ petition, the Court directed an enquiry under Section 64 of the BNSS, 2023; the police subsequently declined protection on the ground that opening the shop might cause a law-and-order problem.

Article 226 of the Constitution provides the High Court’s jurisdiction to issue appropriate writs and directions.

The Court applied the principle that an alleged creditor cannot use force or intimidation to recover a debt or interfere unlawfully with another’s possession; any genuine recovery claim must be pursued through the remedies available before a competent court or other appropriate forum.

Where there is a genuine apprehension of obstruction or violence, the police must take preventive measures in accordance with law; a law-and-order concern alone does not justify leaving a person without protection against alleged unlawful acts.

Protection against unlawful interference does not adjudicate disputed civil rights.

Section 64 of the BNSS, 2023, was referenced as the basis for the enquiry directed in the earlier proceedings, rather than as a substantive rule governing the present decision.

The Court considered the petitioner’s registered sale deed and other documents alongside his allegations of threats and obstruction.

It held that the private respondents’ claimed loans to the deceased, even if established, did not entitle them to interfere forcibly with the petitioner’s possession or business; they must pursue any recovery claim through lawful channels.

The police’s stated concern about a possible law-and-order problem did not, by itself, justify refusing protection.

The Court therefore directed reconsideration of the request and appropriate preventive steps, while making clear that protection would not determine the parties’ civil rights.

The private respondents remained at liberty to pursue any genuine loan-related claim before the competent civil court or other appropriate forum, but were directed not to use force or intimidation or interfere with the petitioner’s lawful possession.