A writ court should not interfere in matters with available alternative remedies, especially when no imminent threat to life and liberty is shown.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. Present criminal writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners from the hands of respondents No.4 to 7.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that petitioner No.1 is having 20 acres of land and petitioner No.2 (wife of petitioner No.1) owns 07 acres of land and as per family arrangements, petitioner No.1 is also in possession of 10 acres of land, registered in the name of his mother-respondent No.6, namely Damayanti Devi, for the last many years, as such, he is cultivating total 37 acres of land. Further, the petitioners are living in upper portion of the house and respondent No.6 is living in lower portion of the same and elder brother of petitioner No.1 along with his family is residing separately. The family of petitioner No.1 jointly owned a land, situated in Village Dotarawali and there is a dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondents No.6 & 7 regarding demarcation and partition etc. of the said land. In this regard, respondent No.6 filed a civil suit before the jurisdictional Court at Abohar, which is pending for 27.05.2025 and against the same, petitioner No.1 filed an appeal, which is pending before learned Additional District Judge, Fazilka for 29.05.2025, as discernible from Annexures P-1 & P- 2, respectively. Furthermore, respondents No.4 & 5 pressurized petitioner No.1 to compromise the matter with respondents No.6 & 7 and threatened him, if he would not give his share to respondent No.6, then they would harm him. Even respondent No.7 threatened petitioner No.1 to implicate him in a false case, if he would not accede to their demand. Upon which, in order to save honour and dignity of his family, petitioner No.1 agreed to compromise and some blank papers were got signed by respondents No.4 & 5, on which, a panchayati compromise was written according to their terms and conditions. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner No.1 sent several representations (Annexures P-8 to P-12) to the jurisdictional police authorities and other authorities on 14.05.2025, however, till date, no action has been taken thereon. Now respondents No.4 & 5 are pressurizing and threatening petitioner No.1 to compromise the matter and withdraw the representations dated 14.05.2025 (Annexures P-8 to P-12) and the appeal filed before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka. It is thus prayed to protect the lives and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondents No.4 to 7.

3. Learned State counsel appears on advance notice and contends that the primary dispute is an inter se conflict between collaterals concerning the demarcation and partition of the land, for which a civil suit is already pending before the jurisdictional Court at Abohar. Although several representations have been submitted to the jurisdictional police authorities, the petitioners have not specifically articulated any specific instance or incident, which would remotely suggest that there is any threat to their life and liberty. Further, the petitioners have equally efficacious alternative remedy under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) [now Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’)] for redressal of the grievance raised in the representations dated

14.05.2025 (Annexures P-8 to P-12).

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that there