IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.531 of 2009 SHIVPUJAN SINGH SON OF LATE MAHADEO SINGH, VILLAGE SEWA BIGHA, P.O. + P.S. KURTHA, DISTRICT- ARWAL Versus 1. BIHAR RAJYA 2. POLICE MAHANIDESHAK, BIHAR, PATNA 3. POLICE UP-MAHANIRICHHAK,APRADH ANUSANDHAN BIBHAG, BIHAR, PATNA 4. ARACHHI UP-MAHANIRICHHAK, MAGADH KSHETRA, GAYA 5. ARACHHI ADHICHHAK, ARWAL 6. ARACHHI UP-ADHICHHAK, ARWAL 7. THANA PRABHARI, KURTHA ----------- 5 13.01.2011 A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The grievance of the petitioner is that Kurtha P.S. Case No. 7 of 2009 lodged by the petitioner for the offences under sections 376, 302, 380, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the witnesses of the said case has been made accused in another case i.e. Kurtha P.S. Case No. 60 of 2009 registered for the offences under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted that the witnesses in the case of Kurtha P.S. Case No. 7 of 2009 have been made accused in Kurtha P.S. Case No. 60 of 2009 in which the son of the petitioner is the accused. Learned counsel further submits that the witnesses of Kurtha P.S. Case No. 7 of 2009 have been made accused in Kurtha P.S. Case No. 60 of 2009 with the sole purpose so that the case of the informant i.e. Kurtha P.S. Case No. 7 of 2009 may adversely be effected. Learned counsel for the State submits that the police after investigation has submitted the charge-sheet in Kurtha P.S. Case No. 7 of 2009 in which the petitioner is the informant, and as such, the allegation of the petitioner that the witnesses of his case were made accused in Kurtha P.S. Case No. 60 of 2009 was only for the purpose to adversely affect the earlier case is not correct. As regards the prayer of the petitioner that Kurtha P.S. Case No. 60 of 2009 should be investigated by an other agency is concerned, it would appear that the petitioner is neither the informant nor the accused in the said case. Besides the above, I do not find any material on record or any valid justification to allow the prayer of the petitioner in this regard. In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in the writ application and the same accordingly stands dismissed. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)