VINAY KUMAR JAINversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 9807 of 2026

Vinay Kumar Jain
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           :   Agam Jain, Aklank Kumar Jain
Counsel for Respondent(s)           :   G.A.

Court No. - 4
                   HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
                   HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing
counsel for State-respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed seeking following substantial
relief:-
      "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
      commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful carrying of
      business of brick-kiln namely M/s. Kumar Gram Udyog Sansthan
      situated in Village Asalatpur, Chandausi.
      ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
      commanding the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the
      representation of the petitioner dated 07.11.2025 as expeditiously as
      possible."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a
dispute with one Smt. Rita Jain with regard to the dissolution of a
partnership firm, which is pending before the Civil Court at
Chandausi, being Original Suit Nos. 87 of 2025 and 88 of 2025. It is
further submitted that the said partner is attempting to grab the
property of the petitioner with the aid and connivance of her brother,
namely, Gajraj Jain, who is stated to be an influential person. In this
regard, an F.I.R. bearing No. 333 of 2025 dated 29.07.2025, under
Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), and 351(3) of the
B.N.S., at Police Station Chandausi, District Sambhal, has been
lodged against the petitioner and his family members. It is submitted
that the said F.I.R. is a counterblast to the institution of the aforesaid
                                                     WRIC No. 9807 of 2026
                               2


civil suits filed by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner has already filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17380
of 2025 challenging the aforesaid F.I.R., which is pending before this
Hon’ble Court, and interim protection from arrest has been granted
to him. It is also submitted that during the pendency of the aforesaid
litigation, the petitioner is being harassed by respondent nos. 3 and 4,
namely, the Superintendent of Police, Sambhal, and the Station
House Officer, Police Station Chandausi, District Sambhal, who are
allegedly threatening to implicate the petitioner in false cases.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said
police officials, in collusion with Smt. Rita Jain, have locked the
office of the petitioner’s brick-kiln without any order from a
competent court of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is suffering not only economic loss but also mental
agony. It is also alleged that respondent no. 4 has illegally detained
the petitioner’s clerk and is intimidating him from carrying out the
business activities.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner has made a representation to respondent no. 2, Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Moradabad, seeking redressal of his
grievances, however, no action has been taken against the officials
concerned. It has also been alleged that respondent nos. 3 and 4 are
extending protection to the aforesaid Smt. Rita Jain and Gajraj Jain,
who are allegedly selling bricks without having any right, title and
interest therein. It is further submitted that when the petitioner
lodged a complaint in this regard, respondent nos. 3 and 4 neither
registered his F.I.R. nor took any action and instead allegedly
intimidated the petitioner.
7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that a
civil dispute exists between the parties pertaining to their
partnership. A bare perusal of the representation dated 07.11.2025
indicates that the petitioner is engaged in a dispute with his partner,
                                                      WRIC No. 9807 of 2026
                              3


Smt. Rita Jain, and her brother. As per the said representation, there
have been instances of altercation among the parties at the site of the
brick-kiln, wherein the said partners were allegedly not permitting
the sale of bricks. It is further submitted that the respondent–police
authorities had reached the disputed site where the scuffle took place
and intervened only to the extent necessary to maintain law and
order and to prevent any untoward incident. There are allegations
and cross-allegations between the private parties, and such disputes
can be resolved only by a competent Civil Court. The
respondent–police authorities cannot resolve such civil disputes. It is
also submitted that, in case the petitioner has any grievance against
the action taken by the police authorities or any other authority, it is
always open to him to lodge a complaint before the competent
authority and pursue remedies available under the criminal law.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the record, it transpires that the crux of the dispute in the present case
pertains to the sale of bricks from the brick-kiln and the recovery
orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. The principal grievance of
the petitioner is that he is unable to sell the bricks, yet he is being
called upon to pay taxes and recovery proceedings have been
initiated against him.
9. The allegations, including those relating to obstruction in sale of
bricks and altercations at the site, give rise to disputed questions of
fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of
the Constitution. The nature of the controversy is essentially civil.
The respondent–police authorities, in such circumstances, are only
required to maintain law and order and cannot be called upon to
resolve private civil disputes.
10. Insofar as the petitioner seeks enforcement of his alleged rights
in the partnership or injunctive relief, the appropriate remedy lies
before the competent Civil Court. Further, in the event of any
cognizable offence or grievance against police action, it is open to
the petitioner to avail remedies under the criminal law before the
competent forum.
                                                                                         WRIC No. 9807 of 2026
                                                                 4


                                    11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with liberty to
                                    the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies as available in law.


                                                                     (Garima Prashad,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.)
                                    March 19, 2026
                                    Sachin Mishra




Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad