Shashi Ranjan @ Bittu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.122 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2022 Thana- SC/ST District- Rohtas ====================================================== SHASHI RANJAN @ BITTU SON OF RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH @RAMESHWAR SINGH R/O VILL.- DHANPURVA, P.S.- SASARAM DHANPURVA, DISTT.- ROHTAS ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BIHAR 3.

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVT. OF BIHAR BIHAR 4.

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR BIHAR 5.

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ROHTAS BIHAR 6.

THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, SC/ST, P.S.- DEHRI-ON-SONE, ROHTAS BIHAR 7.

BABULAL KUNWAR SON OF NAND LAL RAM R/O VILL.- KHAIRA BHUTTAR, POST- NATWAR, P.S.- BIKRAMGANJ, DISTT.- ROHTAS ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Alok For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Manish Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-04-2024 Heard the parties.

2. The following prayer has been made in the writ petition:- "For directing the respondents to quash the First Information Report being Dehri SC/ST P.S. Case No.41/2022 dated 05.08.2022 lodged against the petitioner under sections 341, 323, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(1) (va) of the SC/ST Act which has been filed only to create pressure and evade and delay the different ongoing civil suits including the title suits

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.122 of 2023(6) dt.29-04-2024 2/2 as the informant use to work for the cousin brother of the petitioner.

The petitioner is a Citizen of India and resides well within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and cause of action came within the jurisdiction of this Court and as such he is entitled to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court for the speedy redressal of her malafide grievance."

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State that final form has been submitted finding the case to be false.

4. The court below has not differed with the final form and taken cognizance.

5. In view of the above, this application has become infructuous .

6. It is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn as having become infructuous.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Saif/- U