Om Prakash Thakur v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.656 of 2014 (6) dt.24-04-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.656 of 2014 ====================================================== Om Prakash Thakur, son of Late Shiv Narayan Thakur, resident of Chakkar Maidan, P.S. Kajim Mohammodpur, dist- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Munshi Rai, son of Late Bechan Rai, resident of Village- Majhaulia, P.S. Sadar, Dist- Muzaffarpur.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur Town.
5. The S.H.O. Muzaffarpur Town Police Station .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amrendra Prasad (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 24-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. of Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 201 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the I.P.C.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the State refers to a counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, para-8 of which discloses that the investigation has since been completed and Final Report No. 441/14 dated 07.11.2014 has already been submitted.
4. In view of the aforesaid statement made in the
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.656 of 2014 (6) dt.24-04-2015 counter affidavit which has not been refuted by the petitioner, it is clear that the matter has now advanced beyond the stage of investigation which has now concluded and culminated in a charge sheet submitted against the accused persons. The matter is pending before the learned court below which will take into consideration not only the FIR but also the statements of the witnesses as may have been collected in course of investigation, before passing appropriate orders.
6. This Court is, accordingly, not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this belated stage in view of the subsequent developments as stated above. Without entering into the merits of the matter, therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. (Vikash Jain, J) Md. Ibrarul/- U T