7 0011..0099..22002266 Ct. No. 05 adeb WPA 21287 of 2026 Mohd Riyaz Alam alias Riyaz Alam Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Arghya Mullick …for the petitioner Mr. Abhijit Roy Mr. Deb Kumar Chandra …for the State 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. Learned advocate representing petitioner alleged that respondent no. 5 resorting to forgery transferred shop of petitioner to another person when petitioner was not in town. Complaint was lodged on 30th July, 2026 before the concerned police authorities for taking necessary steps based on allegations made against respondent nos. 5 to 7. 3. Petitioner prays for direction upon the concerned police authorities to take necessary steps based on complaint dated 30th July, 2026 and provide protection to petitioner. 4. Learned advocate representing State respondents has opposed this writ petition and right, title and interest of petitioner in respect of shop room in question is disputed on behalf 2 of State respondents. It is submitted that shop is being run on PWD road and there is no document produced before the police authorities showing ownership of the petitioner over the said land in question. On the contrary, deed is annexed to this writ petition dated 25th March, 2026 wherefrom it appears that said deed was executed between respondent nos. 5 and 6. According to State respondents said deed dated 25th March, 2026 does not corroborate case made out by the petitioner. 5. If petitioner is dissatisfied with the steps taken by the concerned police authorities on receipt of complaint dated 30th July, 2026 in that event petitioner needs to approach jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS 2023. Prayer is also made for providing protection to the petitioner but it is not demonstrated excepting one occasion on 28th July, 2026 that petitioner was threatened and intimidated by respondent nos. 5 to 7. 6. As per complaint dated 30th July, 2026 on 28th July, 2026 petitioner went to house of accused person and raised protest against his alleged conduct when it is alleged that accused person and his associates used expletives. 7. Therefore, this is not an appropriate case to give direction upon the police authorities to 3 provide protection to the petitioner as there is no other allegation of threat and intimidation emanates from complaint dated 30th July, 2026. 8. Hence, present writ petition is dismissed. 9. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law, if so advised. 10. Parties to act on server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)