IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.WJC No.526 of 2006 SUNAINA DEVI, W/o shriu Mahesh Rai, R/o Mohalla- Anwarpur(East),P.S.-Hajipur Town, District- Vaishali …….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2.The Director General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Special Task Force, Bank Road, Patna 4.The Superintendent of Police, Vaishali, Hajipur 5.The Officer-in-charge, Hajipur Police Station, Hajipur 6.Shri Kundan Krishnan, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna …….. Respondents ----------- 35. 19/01/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.A.G.-3 for the State. On behalf of the State, a letter dated 19.1.2009 sent to learned State counsel by the Inspector General of Police(C), CID, Bihar, Patna has been produced before us to show that the investigation in Hajipur Town P.S.Case No.223/06 has been concluded and the Investigating Officer has been ordered to submit final form as “final report true but no clue found”. The case was initially under section 365 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code which was subsequently converted to section 302 read with section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. - 2 - On behalf of the petitioner a dissatisfaction has been expressed against conduct of the investigation by the CID and an I.A. bearing No.97 of 2009 has been filed on 15.1.2009 reiterating the prayer made in the writ petition for directing the respondents authorities to produce petitioner’s husband, namely, Mahesh Rai, who was allegedly forcibly taken away from a restaurant from Hajipur on 27.4.2006 by certain police officials. A prayer has been made also to award appropriate compensation to the petitioner. The said I.A. also contains a prayer to direct any independent agency like Central Vigilance Commission to enquire and submit report in the matter of disappearance of petitioner’s husband and for a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) to investigate the case properly. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the case was initially lodged under section 365 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown on the basis of written information filed by the petitioner. It was further submitted that after initial - 3 - investigation, the Investigating Officer belonging to the general police himself recommended for handing over the matter for investigation to the CID. As a result, investigation has been carried on for a long period by the CID. The writ petition has remained pending since 24.7.2006 and this Court also permitted investigation by the CID inspite of subsequent allegation by the petitioner that some police officials might be responsible for disappearance of her husband. It is submitted that now this Court should not order for delayed investigation by CBI when earlier there was no material to persuade this Court to hand over the investigation to any other agency. It has further been submitted that after submission of final report before the concerned Magistrate, the petitioner will have remedy available to her under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and her objection to the investigation by way of protest petition etc. may be effectively considered by the concerned Magistrate on the basis of materials appearing in the case diary relating to investigation. Having considered the rival contentions - 4 - and the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it will be futile to command the respondents authorities to produce petitioner’s husband before the first court when CID has finally found the case under section 302 read with section 201 of the Indian Penal Code to be true but has found no clue as to who committed the offence. Petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is permitted to pursue her remedy against alleged improper investigation before the concerned Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are not expressing any opinion on merits in respect of the petitioner’s case and the issue of compensation is also left open to be decided at an appropriate stage in accordance with law. The writ petition and the I.A. are finally disposed of. Pradeep/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (J. N. Singh, J.)