2025:JHHC:19377 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(Cr.) No.453 of 2025 ----- Md. Rashid @ M. Rashed, son of late Mustak Quraishi, resident of Muhalla Bhai Bigha, PO and PS Haidernagar, District Palamu … Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Director General of Police, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3.The Inspector General of Police, Palamau Division, Palamau 4.The Superintendent of Police, Palamau 5.The Officer In-charge, Haidernagar, Palamau 6.Dibyansh Shukla, Officer In-charge, Haidernagar, Palamau 7.Afzal Ansari, Police Official, Haidernagar, Palamau 8.Ajit Prasad, SI, Haidernagar, Palamau 9.Santosh Kumar, son of Bali Ram, Circle Officer, Haidernagar, Palamau … Respondents. CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Talat Parween, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC II Ms. Sunita Kumari, AC to Sr. SC II …...... 04 /16.07.2025: The grievance of the petitioner is that his warehouse has been demolished illegally but the FIR has yet not been lodged though the petitioner has given a report which according to the petitioner relates to cognizable offence. He further prays that compensation be paid as the warehouse has been demolished by the respondents. 2. So far as lodging of FIR is concerned, if the petitioner has filed a report and inspite of that, FIR has not been registered, according to me, the petitioner has alternative efficacious statutory remedy. 3. Section 175(3) of BNSS provides for alternative efficacious statutory remedy which the petitioner should have availed. The petitioner should have approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau by filing an appropriate application under aforesaid section. 4. So far as the claim for compensation is concerned, many factual aspects has to be determined while granting compensation. Loss to the petitioner and other aspect needs to be proved by the petitioner by leading cogent oral or documentary evidence, for which a full-fledged trial is necessary. 2025:JHHC:19377 2 5. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot act as a trial court to assess the correct quantum of compensation. 6. Thus, if the petitioner wants compensation, he should approach appropriate Civil Court by filing appropriate application praying for the compensation as no relief can be granted to the petitioner by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/