Rampravesh Bhakat And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1210 of 2015 ======================================================

1. RAMPRAVESH BHAKAT son of Rambaran Bhagat, Resident of village- Surgahiya, P.S.- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi, presently posted as Principal Clerk, M.K. College, Bhutahi, P.S. Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi

2. Bikau Mahto, son of Late Munnilal Mahto, Resident of villageLaxmipur, P.S.- Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi, presently working as Chairman of governed body of M.K. College, Bhutahi, P.s. Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi

4. The Officer-in-Charge, Sonbarsa Police Station, District- Sitamarhi

5. The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi

6. The Chairman, Governing Body of M.K. College, Bhutahi, P.S.- Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi

7. Ramshresth Bhagat, son of Late Ramvilash Bhagat, the Principal, M.K. College, Bhutahi, P.S.- Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devendra Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar (SC 11) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 08-08-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner has moved this Court for quashing of the First Information Report being Sonbarsa P.S. Case No.108 of 2015 dated 02.07.2015 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 in which it is stated that the case was supervised

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1210 of 2015 (3) dt.08-08-2018 by the Inspector and he has submitted his supervision note that the case was found true against all the named accused in the F.I.R. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no prima facie case is made out from the FIR, on going through the same, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the investigation at this stage when in course of supervision the allegations have been found true.

The writ application is, thus, disposed off with a liberty to the petitioner that in case a charge-sheet is filed against him and he is called upon to appear after order taking cognizance is passed, he may seek his remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure itself in accordance with law.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Arvind/- U T