J.C. Kunj Bihari v. The State Of Bihar Through Home Secretary Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.451 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2020 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda ====================================================== J.C. KUNJ BIHARI Son of C.R. Mehra Resident of House No. 63, Tilkamanjhi Chowk, Jawaripur, P.S. - Tilkamanjhi, District - Bhagalpur ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH HOME SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA Bihar 2.

The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 3.

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna 4.

The Superintendent of Police, Nalanda, Bihar 5.

The Sub - Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Nalanda, Bihar 6.

The Officer In Charge, Police Station, Laheri, District - Nalanda, Bihar 7.

Ram Pravesh Kumar Chaudhary Son of Mangal Chaudhary Resident of Village - Mahanandpur, P.S. - Deepnagar, District - Nalanda ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Nafisuzzoha, Adv.

For the Respondents :

Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, GP V ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 27-03-2023 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the first information report bearing Laheri P.S. Case No. 46 of 2020 registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the entire first information report false allegation is there. He submits that the present petitioner has also filed a complaint case bearing

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.451 of 2021(2) dt.27-03-2023 2/2 C.A. No. 3584(C) of 2019 against 11 named accused persons in which name of present informant has figured at serial no. 11. In both the cases allegation of committing fraud making breach of trust is there.

Counsel for the State submits that from both the complaints it is crystal clear that offence has been constituted but who has committed the offence has to be decided by the Court after trial only.

In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere and this writ petition is hereby dismissed. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Shamshad/- U T