Sabuja Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.444 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Sabuja Devi Wife of Uday Prasad, Resident of Village- Yogi Bigha, Police Station- Aungari, Pirbigha O.P., District- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar.

3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Inspector General of Police, Patna Region, Patna.

5. The District Magistrate, Nalanda.

6. The Superintendent of Police, Nalanda.

7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Hilsa, Nalanda.

8. The Investigating Officer, Aungai, P.S. Case No.30/15, Nalanda.

9. Mahendra Prasad , Son of late Doman Prasad.

10. Yaswant Kumar.

11. Anuj Kumar. Both Sons of Mahendra Prasad. All Resident of VillageYogi Bigha, Police Station- Aungri, Pirbigha O.P., District- Nalanda. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manish Kumar(GP-4 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-07-2017 This writ application has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the State-respondent to fairly investigate Aungari P.S. Case No. 30 of 2015, registered under Sections 341/323/504/ 306 / 406 / 420 / 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as to arrest the accused persons of the case, who are respondent Nos. 9 to 11. Learned counsel for the State-respondent submits that the police have already submitted final form, vide Final Form No.33 of 2017, after investigation of the case recording a finding

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.444 of 2017 (3) dt.11-07-2017 2/2 that there is lack of evidence in the case. In the circumstances, there is no question of arrest of the accused respondent Nos.9 to

11. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue the matter, if needed, according to law.

In the circumstances above, there is no need to interfere in the matter in exercise of this extra ordinary jurisdiction. Hence, this writ application stands disposed of as grievance substantially remedied.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- U T