Mahendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1807 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== Mahendra Prasad, son of Chalitra Prasad, Resident of Village-Chadhua, P.S. Kurhani, District-Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur.

5. Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Kurhani, District-Muzaffarpur.

6. Satya Naryan Rai, Son of late Ram Chandra Rai.

7. Bimla Devi, wife of Satya Narayan Rai.

8. Kavit Kumari, daughter of Satyanarayan Rai.

9. Pintu Kumar, son of Satyanarayan Rai.

10. Puja Kumari, daugher of Satyanarayan Rai.

11. Khusbhu Kumari, daughter of Satyanarayan Rai.

12. Manoj Rai, Son of Ram Chandra Rai.

13. Rajesh Rai, Son of Ram Chandra Rai.

14. Rakesh Rai, Son of Ram Chandra Rai.

All respondent nos. 6 to 14 are residents of Village-Parurmai Sah Mohammadpur (Hussainipur), P.S.-Tisiauta, District-Vaishali.

15. Harishchandra Rai @ Patel, son of Late Jatan Rai.

16. Chandrakala Devi, wife of Haris Chandra Rai.

17. Rajeev Kumar, son of Haris Chandra Rai.

All respondent nos. 15 to 17 are residents of Village-Karnati, P.S. Mahnar, District-Vaishali.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ruchikar Jha, AC to SC-8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 13-12-2022 No one appears for the petitioner. Mr. Ruchikar Jha, learned AC to SC-8 appears for the State.

The prayer for the petitioner is to direct the official respondents to lodge an FIR to inquire into the allegations against respondent nos. 6 to 17.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1807 of 2017(2) dt.13-12-2022 2/2 petitioner has moved directly before this Court for lodging of the FIR. He has not followed the procedures required to be followed in the Code of Criminal Procedure and in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Another versus The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 and in the case of Sakiri Vasu versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, this application cannot proceed. It is dismissed accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SUSHMA2/- U T