IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1028 of 2009 1. SAWAI SINGH SOLANKI S/O LATE KESAR SINGH SOLANKI, OF E.C.L. COLONY DAWALPUR, P.S. AND DISTRICT- DHAWALPUR. 2. K.EDWARD KOLLY S/O LATE K.V. GEORGE OF R.E.C.L. COLONY, DHAWALPUR, P.S. AND DISTRICT- DHAWALPUR. 3. SOHAN SINGH S/O LATE GURU SHARAN SINGH NEAR P.N.B. DHULKOT, P.S. AND DISTRICT- DHAWALPUR. . . . . . PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NAWADA 3. INVESTIGATING OFFICER, AKBARPUR P.S. CASE NO. 17 OF 2009, P.S. AKBARPUR, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 4. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, AKBARPUR POLICE STATION, P.S. AKBARPUR, DISTRICT- NAWADA. . . . . . RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3/ 03.09.2010 In the instant writ application, the petitioners have prayed for prohibiting the respondents from proceeding with investigation of Akbarpur P.S. case no. 17 of 2008 instituted under Sections 414 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections ¾ of the Explosive Substance Act and 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The petitioner submits that some explosives were being transported by Gayatri Trading Company, a registered company having due license. The vehicle carrying the aforesaid explosive was checked at Nawada. In course of investigation, the police found that the Gayatri Trading Company also takes supply from the petitioners’ company, which is a joint sector company with RIICO (A Rajasthan Government under taking) and presently is a government provided organization. He submits that seizure of the vehicle at Nawada has nothing to do with the petitioners’ company. The police exceeded their jurisdiction and began to verify petitioners’ company in Rajasthan to rope it in one pretext or another. In course of 2 verification, it found that Form no. 37 of the petitioners’ company does not contain the name of the authorized persons of the trading agency, who would take supply from it. He further submits that the aforesaid latches, if any, would not invite any penal provisions. He further submits that the police official did not have authority to verify the documents of the petitioner’s company, as it has nothing to do with the alleged seizure of explosive at Nawada, which was being brought from Gomio factory. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners’ company is unnecessarily being harassed. He further submits that on requisition of police, learned Magistrate issued warrant of arrest against 10 persons of the petitioners’ company, without there being any basis. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioners can not interfere with police investigation. Though the police has unfettered power to make an investigation, the same cannot tread on unwarranted path and become directionless. The item seized either concerned Gayatri Company or the Gomio Explosive factory. Moreover, even in course of verification of petitioners’ company, the police only found that Form 37 did not indicate the name of the persons, who would carry the supply from the petitioners’ company. In this view of the matter, the warrant of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate is kept in abeyance, till the conclusion of the investigation. 3 In the meantime, no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner. It will be open to the petitioners to make representation before the Superintendent of Police, Nawada, if so advised. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)