HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 9807 of 2026 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J. HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for State-respondents. 2. Present petition has been filed seeking following substantial relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful carrying of business of brick-kiln namely M/s. Kumar Gram Udyog Sansthan situated in Village Asalatpur, Chandausi. ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 07.11.2025 as expeditiously as possible." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a dispute with one Smt. Rita Jain with regard to the dissolution of a partnership firm, which is pending before the Civil Court at Chandausi, being Original Suit Nos. 87 of 2025 and 88 of 2025. It is further submitted that the said partner is attempting to grab the property of the petitioner with the aid and connivance of her brother, namely, Gajraj Jain, who is stated to be an influential person. In this regard, an F.I.R. bearing No. 333 of 2025 dated 29.07.2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), and 351(3) of the B.N.S., at Police Station Chandausi, District Sambhal, has been lodged against the petitioner and his family members. It is submitted that the said F.I.R. is a counterblast to the institution of the aforesaid Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Agam Jain, Aklank Kumar Jain Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Vinay Kumar Jain .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) civil suits filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has already filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17380 of 2025 challenging the aforesaid F.I.R., which is pending before this Hon’ble Court, and interim protection from arrest has been granted to him. It is also submitted that during the pendency of the aforesaid litigation, the petitioner is being harassed by respondent nos. 3 and 4, namely, the Superintendent of Police, Sambhal, and the Station House Officer, Police Station Chandausi, District Sambhal, who are allegedly threatening to implicate the petitioner in false cases. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said police officials, in collusion with Smt. Rita Jain, have locked the office of the petitioner’s brick-kiln without any order from a competent court of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is suffering not only economic loss but also mental agony. It is also alleged that respondent no. 4 has illegally detained the petitioner’s clerk and is intimidating him from carrying out the business activities. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has made a representation to respondent no. 2, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad, seeking redressal of his grievances, however, no action has been taken against the officials concerned. It has also been alleged that respondent nos. 3 and 4 are extending protection to the aforesaid Smt. Rita Jain and Gajraj Jain, who are allegedly selling bricks without having any right, title and interest therein. It is further submitted that when the petitioner lodged a complaint in this regard, respondent nos. 3 and 4 neither registered his F.I.R. nor took any action and instead allegedly intimidated the petitioner. 7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that a civil dispute exists between the parties pertaining to their partnership. A bare perusal of the representation dated 07.11.2025 indicates that the petitioner is engaged in a dispute with his partner, WRIC No. 9807 of 2026 2 Smt. Rita Jain, and her brother. As per the said representation, there have been instances of altercation among the parties at the site of the brick-kiln, wherein the said partners were allegedly not permitting the sale of bricks. It is further submitted that the respondent–police authorities had reached the disputed site where the scuffle took place and intervened only to the extent necessary to maintain law and order and to prevent any untoward incident. There are allegations and cross-allegations between the private parties, and such disputes can be resolved only by a competent Civil Court. The respondent–police authorities cannot resolve such civil disputes. It is also submitted that, in case the petitioner has any grievance against the action taken by the police authorities or any other authority, it is always open to him to lodge a complaint before the competent authority and pursue remedies available under the criminal law. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the crux of the dispute in the present case pertains to the sale of bricks from the brick-kiln and the recovery orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that he is unable to sell the bricks, yet he is being called upon to pay taxes and recovery proceedings have been initiated against him. 9. The allegations, including those relating to obstruction in sale of bricks and altercations at the site, give rise to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The nature of the controversy is essentially civil. The respondent–police authorities, in such circumstances, are only required to maintain law and order and cannot be called upon to resolve private civil disputes. 10. Insofar as the petitioner seeks enforcement of his alleged rights in the partnership or injunctive relief, the appropriate remedy lies before the competent Civil Court. Further, in the event of any cognizable offence or grievance against police action, it is open to the petitioner to avail remedies under the criminal law before the competent forum. WRIC No. 9807 of 2026 3 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies as available in law. March 19, 2026 Sachin Mishra WRIC No. 9807 of 2026 4 (Garima Prashad,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad