2025:JHHC:15573 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 344 of 2025 ------ Arti Soy, wife of Rama Kant Soy, resident of H. No. 296, Zone No. 2-B, Birsa Nagar, P.o and P.S. Birsa Nagar, Chhotagovindpur Telco, District- East Singghbhum (Jharkhand). ….. Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Director General of Police, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Sakchi, District- East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. 4. The Superintendent of Police, City, Sakchi, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. 5. The Officer-in-Charge, Birsa Nagar Police Station, Birsa Nagar, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. 6. Vaidyadhar Ojha, son of Sri Ramdaya Ojha, resident of Qr. No. 6/1, Block No. 29, Alakhnanda, Alok Vihar, Ghorabandha, P.o and P.S. Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate. For the State : AC to AG …..... 5/13.06.2025: In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for commanding upon the concerned respondents to protect her from respondent No. 6, who is trying to grab the land and house pertaining to Khersra No. 4130, 4131, Ward No. 17 Khata No. 55 Birsa Nagar of the poor Tribal Lady and further for a direction upon respondent No. 3 to provide security to the petitioner. So far as relief is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondents are trying to forcefully dispossess the petitioner. The petitioner should approach the Civil Court and pray for appropriate relief. This Court is of the opinion that the right, title and interest of the petitioner over the property in question needs to be ascertained. Further, there is remedy available to the petitioner by way of interim injunction which the petitioner can seek. So far as attack upon the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner should approach the concerned Police Station by lodging an FIR. If a cognizable office is made out, the FIR has to be lodged. The police cannot deny lodging of the FIR. It is also clear that if the FIR is not registered by the police, the petitioner is having alternative remedy to file a complaint requesting the Court to direct the respondent to lodged the FIR. Admittedly for both the prayers, the petitioner has alternative efficious remedy which the petitioner can avail. Thus, liberty is given to the petitioner to avail the alternative efficious statutory remedy. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. Anu/-Cp3 (ANANDA SEN, J.)