IMPORTANT POINT
The invocation of Section 144 requires clear evidence of an emergency; it cannot be used to interfere with ongoing civil disputes without sufficient justification.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ application challenging the order passed by the Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Jalpaiguri under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dated 4th May, 2024.

2. The petitioner no.1 is a company and the petitioner no.2 is one of the director of the petitioner no.1 company. As per the case of the petitioners, the petitioner no.1 by way of Deed of Indenture dated 7th August, 2023 and dated 23rd November, 2023, the petitioner no.1 had purchased some landed properties. The petitioner no.1 had also entered into several registered development agreements with several land owners for the purpose of developing such plots of land.

3. The petitioner says that the petitioner no.2 had purchased approximately 2 acres of land in his personal capacity in Khatian No. 1397 corresponding to L.R. Khatian No.189 with R.S. Plot No.123 corresponding to L.R. Plot No.98 within Mouza- Baropatia Nutanbas, JL No. 1, Sheet No. 2, Jalpaiguri and Jitendra Prasad Dubey has purchased corresponding to L.R. Khatian No.189 with R.S. Plot No.123 corresponding to L.R. Plot No.98 within Mouza- Baropatia Nutanbas, JL No. 1, Sheet No. 2, Jalpaiguri.

4. The petitioner no.2 along with one Jitendra Prasad Dubey agreed to mutually develop the above property but due to several hindrances and disturbances caused by some third party development could not be carried out peacefully. The petitioner no. 2 along with Jitendra Prasad Dubey instituted a suit against the third parties for perpetual injunction before the learned Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Jalpaiguri being T.S. No. 542 of 2022. The Learned Court had on 21st November, 2022, has granted ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from causing interference of the petitioner no.2 and Jitendra Prasad Dubey. The order of injunction was time to time varied or modified and as on date there is an order of status quo upon the suit schedule property.

5. The petitioners says that the suit schedule property in T.S. No. 542 of 2022 are not the under the ownership and possession or occupation of the petitioner no.1. The disputed land is under the personal and independent ownership of the petitioner no.2.

6. On 18th April 2024, the Inspector–in-Charge of the Kotwali Police Station had served a notice to one Jitendra Prasad Dubey wherein it was informed that the as per the information slip received by the police from one Shri Ranjit Das in connection with T.S. No. 542 of 2022 in which by an order dated 31st August, 2023, the Civil Court has directed the plaintiffs and the defendants to maintain status quo over the schedule property in respect of nature, character and possession of the same till the disposal of the suit.

7. The petitioner says that suit property involved in T.S. No. 542 of 2022 is not the development property of the petitioners but even the Police Authorities arrested the workers of the petitioners and interfering with the right of the petitioner no.1 in the property.

8. On 6th May, 2024, the order passed by the respondent no.5 under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, dated 4th May, 2024, was pasted on the conspicuous location of the plots of the land of the petitioners and the same was received by the labrours of the petitioner no.1. The petitioners say that the respondent no.5 has passed the impugned order dated 4th May, 2024, on the prayer of the respondent no.4.

9. Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee, Learned Advocate representing the petitioners submits that the respondent no.5 has passed the impugned order based on the several FIR’s but all the FIR’s are of 2022 and 2023. He submits that if there is threat in the locale and in and around the property, it is the duty of the police authorities to maintain peace and security and not to injuct the petitioners from carrying out development work on their own property.

10. Mr. Banerjee submits that in an proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal pro