IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.210 of 2008 RAM NARAYAN SUMAN SON OF SHRI BRIJENDRA KUMAR @ BRIJENDRA KUMAR KALAKAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RATUPAR, P.O. TAJPUR, P.S. ANDHARATHADHI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. ---- PETITIONER. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL-CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 5. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DARBHANGA RANGE, DARBHANGA. 6. THE COLLECTOR-CUM- DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHUBANI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. 7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MADHUBANI DISTRICT, MADHUBANI. 8. SHRI SHANKAR PRASAD SAH, SON NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE THEN OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (NOW RECHRISTENED AS S.H.O.) OF ANCHARATHADHI POLICE STATION, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. 9. SRI NARENDRA NARAYAN SINGH, SON NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POSTED AS ANDHARATHADHI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. --- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3/ 27-04-2009 The petitioner has been made accused in Ancharathadhi P.S. Case No. 51 of 2006 for the offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 324, 333, 353, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioner is that he was detained by the police in police lock up beyond the period of 24 hours without any valid order of the competent Magistrate in connection with the aforesaid P.S. case. The petitioner has filed this application for payment of appropriate - 2 - compensation amounting to Rs. One lac and also for taking appropriate penal action against 8th respondent for deliberately violating the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and also the mandate contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure ,1973. In my opinion the petitioner at the first instance should have approached the Magistrate for taking action against the concerned respondents about his allegations are concerned but he has failed to do so. There is no material to show that respondents were acting malafide. In any event a writ petition will not lie without exhausting the remedies available to the petitioner else where. The writ application is dismissed. BTiwary/ ( J. B. Koshy, CJ )