Kanhaiya Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45494 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2023 Thana- PIPRA District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Kanhaiya Singh, Son Of Late Surendra Singh Resident Of Village - Madhudih, P.S. - Pipra, Distt. - East Champaran 2.

Pappu Singh @ Gautam Rana, Son Of Chandrabhusan Singh Resident Of Village - Madhudih, P.S. - Pipra, Distt. - East Champaran 3.

Ravi Bhusan Singh, Son Of Indra Bhusan Singh Resident Of Village - Madhudih, P.S. - Pipra, Distt. - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sunil Singh @ Santosh Kumar Singh Son of Nagendra Singh Resident of village - Madhudih, P.S. - Pipra, Distt. - East Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mr. Priyesh Kumar For the State :

Mr. Binod Kumar- A.P.P.

For Opposite Party No.2 :

Mr. Ansul Mr. Aditya Pandey Ms. Sagarika ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-02-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned APP for the State.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that in the present quashing application two prayers were made, first for seeking quashing of the F.I.R. i.e. Pipra P. S. Case No. 40 of 2023 and in the alternative, it has also been prayed that a direction be given to the police for investigating the case in a fair manner.

3. The learned counsel thus submits that he is not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45494 of 2023(3) dt.09-02-2024 2/2 pressing his relief with regard to quashing of the F.I.R., but then, submits that the petitioners would be satisfied in the event, if the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran at Motihari is directed to hold a fair investigation of the case after considering the representation of the petitioners filed on 17.01.2024 (which is annexed as Annexure-9 series to the quashing application).

4. The learned Additional P. P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not rebut the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, but then, submits that it absolutely does not stand to reason that why petitioners fear that the police will not investigate the case in its correct perspective.

5. Be that as it may, the quashing application is partly allowed and it is expected that the police will hold a fair investigation and will also take into consideration the point raised by the petitioners in their representation dated 17.01.2024.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T