IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1011 of 2008 NANKI DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. For the petitioner : Mr. D.K.Sinha, Sr.Adv. Mr.Sita Yadav,Adv. For the State : Mr.Ram Chandra Prasad Bharti, SC.14 Mr.Ajay Kumar, A.C. to SC.14. 6 25.07.2009 Petitioner has prayed for an independent investigation into the case under FIR No. 144 of 2008 of Fuli Dumar Amarpur Police Station under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149,448, and IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act. It has also been prayed that the I.O. of the case be changed and that D.N.Ram, the then I.O. be not made further I.O. of the case. In the FIR, the informant Nanhki Devi alleged that the six accused under the FIR have been arrayed as Respondent Nos. 9 to 14 of the application shot at her husband Girish Manjhi (deceased) in her house and thereby killed him. Any other witness was not named in the F.I.R. Petitioner has stated that he had filed a petition before the Deputy Inspector General of Police for fair investigation, but no action was taken. In Para 3(iv) of the counter affidavit of the State respondents, it is stated that the D.I.G., Eastern Range directed the Additional Superintendent of police cum- S.D.P.O., Banka to enquire into the investigation and thereafter the A.S.P in presence of the I.O. had inspected the P.O. and statements of witnesses, namely Prakash Manjhi, Bijendra Yadav, Bibhishan 2 Yadav, Lakwa Manjhi, Shashikant Pandey, Nityanand Paswan, Ashok Yadav, Shyama Devi were taken and that those witnesses did not say about the occurrence as stated by the informant and said that the accused named in the FIR were present in a feasrt ceremony in village Naraw. It is also stated that the witnesses said that the deceased was a criminal involved in the cases as mentioned in the counter affidavit. It is stated that the occurrence was committed due to previous enmity. At Para-3(v) it was stated that the witnesses did not say about the complicity of the FIR named accused and, therefore, they were not arrested during investigation. In Para-6 of the supplementary counter affidavit it is stated that during investigation, statement of witnesses Bhairo Manjhi, Triloki Manjhi and Paro Yadav was taken who stated about complicity of the accused Manoj Mandal, Dhananjay Das, Kailu Sharma and Sanjay Das. In Para-7 of the supplementary counter affidavit, it is stated that witnesses Pankaj Singh, Navneet Singh, Sikandar Prasad, Gopal Singh had given different version of the occurrence. Thus, it is stated that the Police is making due investigation by recording statement of witnesses and taking further steps. At Para-10 of the supplementary counter affidavit, it is stated that the present I.O., S.I. Jitendra Singh took over the charge of investigation from the previous I.O., S.I. Susbhash Pathak on 25th May 2009. Learned S.C.14 submitted that the grievance of the petitioner already stands redressed, inasmuch as 3 previous I.O. has already been changed. Further submission is that in this case, the investigation is in progress and charge-sheet is likely to be submitted within a short period. In such view of the matters, I find no material to indicate any mala fide in the investigation carried out in this case. Since the I.O. has already been changed the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. In the circumstances, no order need be passed and this application is accordingly disposed of. Jay/ ( C. M. Prasad,J )