Pinki Maya v. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.100 of 2014 ======================================================
1. Pinki Maya Wife Of Sri Bansidhar Brajwasi Resident Of Village - Raksa, P.S.- Karja, District- Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Director General Of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police - Cum - Station Head, Vigilance PoliceStation, 6, Circular Road, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. N.K.Singh (Sc2) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-01-2015 In the present application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner in paragraph 1 is as under :- "1. That, this writ application on behalf of the petitioner above named is for the following RELIEFS :
(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS, commanding and directing the Respondent Authorities to arrest the First Information Report named accused of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 03 of 2013 dated 16.01.2013, registered for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also take proper action against them since the First Information Report named accused persons are evading their arrest in connivance with the police officer and still they indulged in misappropriation of public money.
(II) For issuance of any other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.100 of 2014 (2) dt.15-01-2015 2/2 writ petitioner would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case."
In the aforesaid police case one Upendra Prasad Singh is the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said Upendra Prasad Singh instituted the F.I.R. pursuant to a complaint made by the petitioner and some others. The allegations made in the F.I.R. relate to misappropriation of funds of MANREGA.
Be that as it may, the nature of relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be allowed by this Court in writ jurisdiction. If an information relating to a cognizable offence is brought to the notice of the police officer, though the Investigating Officer of the case has power to arrest, he can still refrain from arresting persons depending upon the nature of offences and circumstances revealed in course of investigation. The Investigating Officer is not expected to act mechanically in all cases to arrest the accused as soon as the offence is leveled. At the stage of investigation, the Court has no role to play.
In that view of the matter, I find no merit in the present application. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Pradeep/- U T