Patna High Court
NIGAM CHANDRA MISHRAversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as misconceived, and the petitioner must pursue the civil remedy in the pending suit.
Summary
Petitioner Nigam Chandra Mishra filed a writ petition seeking a high‑level inquiry and administrative action against police officials (respondents 7 and 8) alleging misconduct in a property‑partition dispute with his brother (respondent 9). The dispute over ancestral land is already before the Civil Court (Title Suit No. 104 of 2003). The petitioner claimed that a police Section 144 proceeding was improperly initiated and later dismissed, and he sought judicial intervention via the writ. The High Court held that the writ petition was misconceived because the matter is essentially a civil dispute for which an efficacious civil remedy exists. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue his grievance through the pending civil suit.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate forum for adjudicating a civil property‑partition dispute that also involves alleged police misconduct?
- Can a writ petition be entertained to direct a police inquiry when the underlying dispute is civil in nature?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 144
Subjects
- civil dispute
- property partition
- writ petition
- police misconduct
- Section 144
- alternative remedy
- jurisdiction
- high level inquiry
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.808 of 2022
======================================================
Nigam Chandra Mishra, Son Of Late Bhibhuti Bhushan Mishra, R/O
Mohalla- Raisar, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Patna
3. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Munger Range, Munger
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Munger
5. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Munger
6. The Officer-In-Charge, Kotwali Police Station, Munger
7. The In-Charge Police Outpost, Basudeopur, Munger Under Kotwali Police
Station, Munger
8. Sri Jai Prakah Singh, Sub Inspector Of Police, Son Of Not Known to
Petitioner, At Present Posted as In-Charge Police Outpost, Basudeopur,
Under Kotwali Police Station, Munger
9. Sri Vijay Bhushan Mishra, Son Of Late Rasik Lal Mishra, R/O Mohalla-
Raisar, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Munger
10. Sri Sanjay Bhushan Mishra, Son Of Sri Vijay Bhushan Mishra, R/O
Mohalla- Raisar, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Munger
11. Sri Sumit Mishra @ Happy, Son Of Sri Sanjay Bhushan Mishra, R/O
Mohalla- Raisar, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Munger
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Dr. Mankeshwar Tiwari, AC to AAG-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 13-03-2026 The present writ petition is not admitted till date.
However, notice was issued by a Co-ordinate Bench to the
respondents before admission of the present Writ Petition.
2. Perused the writ petition. I am of the considered
view that it may be disposed of at this stage itself.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.808 of 2022(5) dt.13-03-2026
2/3
AC to AAG-3 for the State.
4. The present writ petition has been preferred by
petitioner seeking direction to the respondents/police authorities
to conduct high level inquiry into the matter of the petitioner
and the conduct of the in-charge Basudeopur O.P., under
Kotwali Police Station in the district of Munger and take
administrative action against the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 who
are police officials.
5. The factual background of the case is that the
petitioner and respondent No.9 are brothers and there is dispute
regarding partition of the landed property. As per the petitioner,
the partition has been illegally effected by his brother Vijay
Bhushan Mishra which has been challenged by the petitioner in
the Civil Court by Title Suit No. 104 of 2003 pending in the
Civil Court, Munger.
6. It is also alleged by the petitioner that one boundary
has been raised by his respondent/brother and the boundary
raised by the petitioner has been demolished. Hence, on account
of illegal activity of the respondent No.9, information has been
given to the police upon which proceeding under Section 144
Cr.PC was initiated, but the same has been disposed of, against
which, the petitioner has even preferred criminal revision and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.808 of 2022(5) dt.13-03-2026
3/3
the same has also been dismissed. Hence, the petitioner is before
this Court seeking inquiry into the dispute between his brother
and action against police officials.
7. In my considered view, the present writ petition is
misconceived. It is a civil dispute between the petitioner and
respondent No.9 in regard to their ancestral property for which
the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy by way of
appropriate civil suit which has already been preferred before
the Civil Court.
8. Hence, the present writ petition is disposed of with
liberty to the petitioner to agitate all the grievances in regard to
the property before the Civil Court where the Title Suit No. 104
of 2003 is pending. If the petitioner prefers any interlocutory
application before the Civil Court for any interim relief in
regard to the property in question, learned Civil Court is duty
bound to dispose of it at the earliest as per law.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
S.Ali/-
U T
Checking your session…