Mangar Mahto v. The State Of Bihar Through D.G.P. Bihar And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.764 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -305 Year- 2009 Thana -Goraul District- VAISHALI (HAJIPUR) ===========================================================
1. Mangar Mahto Son of Late Nathuni Mahto Resident of Village - Chaurahi, Police Station - Goraul (Katahra), District- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Vaishali.
3. The Station House Officer, Goraul Police Station, Vaishali.
4. The Investigation Officer, Goraul Police Station, Vaishali. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Khatim Reza, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, A.C. to SC2 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 20-02-2015 The petitioner is informant of Goraul P.S. Case No. 305 of 2009 registered for the offences punishable under sections 364, 366-A, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
In this application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a mandamus to be issued upon the investigating agency of the aforesaid police case to proceed with the investigation on the basis of first statement made by the victim under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been contended that in the first statement made under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the victim has narrated the correct story but subsequently her statement was
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.764 of 2014 dt.20-02-2015 2/2 recorded in course of investigation pursuant to a requisition made by the police in which she has given a completely different story. The contention is that the investigating agency should be directed not to proceed on the basis of second statement made by the victim under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In my view, the application is misconceived. To hold investigation into a cognizable offence is the statutory right of the police. The informant of the case cannot dictate the terms of investigation.
Accordingly, the application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Pradeep/- U T