Writ court will not direct police to restore possession in a private property dispute.

The petitioner purchased land at Saradapally Bhutgoria, Bankura, after his wife’s death and constructed a residential house there.

His handicapped son, Tapas Chakraborty, married respondent no. 6, Riya Neogi, who thereafter began residing in the house with them.

The petitioner alleged that respondent no. 6 and Barun Garai subjected him and his son to threats and torture, resulting in their leaving the house and residing elsewhere.

The police report disclosed cross-cases between the parties.

A case was registered against respondent no. 6 and Barun Garai under Sections 115(2) and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 92(a) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007; the investigation culminated in a charge-sheet.

Respondent no. 6 also lodged a case against the petitioner and his son under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which likewise culminated in a charge-sheet.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to police protection against respondent no. 6 in circumstances where the petitioner and his son had already left the disputed house and were not alleged to be facing continuing harassment at their present residence

Whether the writ court could direct the State authorities to restore the petitioner’s possession of the house allegedly occupied by respondent no. 6

Whether any further direction was warranted when the State authorities had acted upon the petitioner’s complaints and criminal proceedings were pending between the parties

The Court applied the principle that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot ordinarily be used to restore possession of disputed immovable property, particularly where the dispute involves competing factual allegations and pending criminal proceedings.

The Court also proceeded on the basis that police protection is not warranted in the absence of a continuing threat requiring such protection, especially where the alleged harassment is connected with a disputed residence rather than the petitioner’s current place of residence.

The Court noted that the petitioner could pursue appropriate remedies under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, if so advised.

The criminal proceedings were governed by the cited provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Court found that the State had responded to the petitioner’s complaints by conducting an inquiry, registering a criminal case against respondent no. 6 and Barun Garai, and filing a charge-sheet.

At the same time, respondent no. 6 had instituted a counter-case against the petitioner and his son, which had also resulted in a charge-sheet.

These competing proceedings were required to reach their logical conclusions through the appropriate legal processes.

Since the petitioner and his son were no longer residing with respondent no. 6, and there was no allegation that she was visiting or harassing them at their current residence, the Court found no present basis for granting police protection.

The petitioner’s principal grievance concerned recovery of possession of the house, but the Court held that restoration of possession was not a function of the respondent authorities in the writ proceedings and that the issue could not be adjudicated in the present petition.

The petitioner was left at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, if advised.

The writ petition, W.P.A. 26541 of 2025, was accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.

Since no order was passed against respondent no. 6, the matter was decided in her absence; the allegations in the writ petition were not treated as admitted because no affidavit had been called for.