Vinay Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Vigilance Investigation Bureau, 6 Circular Road, Pa

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2341 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-515 Year-2017 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna ====================================================== Vinay Kumar Sinha Son of Late Dr. Ram Sharan Sinha, Resident of Rajendra Nagar Telephone Exchange Road, P.S.- Bahadurpur, Kadamkua, DistrictPatna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Vigilance Investigation Bureau, 6 Circular Road, Patna 2.

The Director General, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, 6 Circular Road, Patna.

3.

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

The DIG, Patna Range, Patna.

5.

The District Magistrate, Patna.

6.

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.

7.

The Executive Engineer, PHED, East Patna, Patna. 8.

The Officer In-charge, Gandhi Maidan Police Station, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Thakur, Adv.

:

Mr. Vikas Kumar, Adv.

:

Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Adv.

:

Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. M. Nasrul Huda Khan, Spl.P.P.

For the Vigilance :

Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 13-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present criminal writ petition has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. being Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 515 of 2017 dated 02.11.2017. Counsel himself submits that charge-sheet has

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2341 of 2017(8) dt.13-10-2023 2/2 already been filed in this case and by virtue of I.A No. 01 of 2023, counsel has brought on record subsequent development of the case and wants to add new prayer challenging the order of cognizance, order of framing of charge as well as order of criminal proceeding.

3. Counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the cause of action for filing the present criminal writ has already been lapsed.

4. In this view of the subsequent development which has taken place in the present matter, the writ petition has now become infructuous. As such, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of cognizance, framing of charge and other matters, if any, in separate proceedings. (Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U