RAJESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER has been made for the purpose of commanding the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over their residential house situated in village Purey Dayal, Pargana, Barasthi, District Jaunpur. Further prayer has also been made for commanding respondents not to interfere with the peaceful living of the petitioners as provided under the law. We have come to know the facts and circumstances of the case. One of the brothers of the petitioners namely Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi is the accused in a heinous crime case. According to the petitioners, the police is regularly visiting the place of the petitioners and harassing them and their mother. They are threatening to attach the property in spite of decree of the civil suit passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaunpur, in original suit No. 1014 of 2002 whereunder the petitioners' properties are separated from the accused by a decree of partition.

(2.) THE petitioners contended that under the garb of proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the police personnel are threatening to seize the property, which legitimately belongs to the petitioners. They have no connection with Prem Prakash Singh alias Munna bajrangi. In any event, the property of the petitioners is adjacent to the property of Prem Prakash Singh alias Munna Bajrangi and admittedly not physically divided.

(3.) UPON hearing the parties, we have not yet been able to understand the cause of action of the writ petition. We are not concerned with future cause of action, if any. If the property is attached, in that case, the appropriate remedy is available to get release of the property from appropriate authority on the basis of decree of the civil Court, Therefore, it is not a fit case for interference. It appears to us that the petitioners only want to have assurance from the Court about no disturbance from the police. It has alleged that the police is not discharing its duty properly. According to us the petitioners have avenue to make appropriate representation before the concern authority or to proceed before Human Rights Commission for the remedy. This Court cannot interfere with such type of vague allegations.