Munilal Mandal v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.61 of 2016 ====================================================== Munilal Mandal, son of Hanumani Mandal, resident of village- Panchma, P.S.- Korha, District- Katihar .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Superintendent of Police, Katihar

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Katihar

4. The Officer in-charge of Kodha Police Station, District- Katihar

5. Radha Devi, Wife of Kanhai Ravidas, resident of village- Panchma, P.S.- Korha, District- Katihar (Informant of Korha P.S. Case No. 126 of 2015)

6. Kiran Devi, Wife of Pramod Ravidas, resident of village- Kumhar Toli Panchma, P.S.- Korha, District- Katihar (Informant of Korha P.S. Case No. 79 of 2013)

7. Prakash Ravidas, son of Kanhai Ravidas, resident of village- Panchma, P.S.- Korha, District- Katihar (Informant/complainant of Complaint Case No. 473 of 2009) .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A.B.Sinha,SC 19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA ORAL ORDER 23-02-2016 The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for a direction for initiation of proceeding against respondent nos. 5 to 7 and their associates under appropriate Sections of Indian Penal Code and for imposition of heavy cost and with further direction not to lodge case against the petitioner or his family members.

It is the admitted case of the petitioner himself that Complaint Case No. 473 of 2009, Korha PS Case Nos. 79 of 2013 and 126 of 2015 and Title Suit No. 54 of 2012 are

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.61 of 2016 (4) dt.23-02-2016 2/2 pending before the competent court of jurisdiction at Katihar. Therefore, the petitioner's claim that the action of the respondents in implicating the petitioner is not tenable. The petitioner prays against initiation of proceeding against him. There cannot be any blanket injunction against the private respondents for not initiating proceeding. The parties are at liberty to avail such remedy as they may have against each other. In view of a large number of cases pending between the parties, I do not find any direction as sought for is permissible or can be granted.

The writ petition is dismissed.

(Hemant Gupta, J) mrl U T