WP(C) 3906/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. P Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G Soren, learned State counsel. Considering the grievance raised in the petition and also as agreed to b y the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is being dis posed of at the motion stage itself. The instant writ petition has been filed for a direction to the responde nt authorities to investigate the Sivasagar PS Case No.342/2010 under Sections 1 43/427/379 IPC. The petitioner’s case in brief is that a complaint was filed by the peti tioner before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sivasagar on 28.6.10 against the five accused persons, viz. 1. Md. Mukhtar Ali, 2. Mrs. Sofina Begum, W/o of Muk htar Ali’s wife, 3. Sri Narayan Singh, 4. Sri Binoy Sahani and 5. Naju Khan alle ging inter alia therein that the petitioner was doing wholesale business at BG R oad, Sivasagar in a rented godown belonging to Md. M Ali. But no repairing work was done by the owner of the godown since long time and therefore, it became unf it for storing materials. The petitioner on many occasions informed the owner, i .e. Mukhtar Ali for repairing the godown. As he did not take any steps for repai ring the godown, the petitioner approached the civil court and filed a civil sui t wherein the court directed Mukhtar Ali, owner of the godown to take necessary steps including earth filling of the house so that the artificial floods could n ot enter into the godown. On 27.6.10, Mukhtar Ali alongwith the abovementioned a ccused persons entered into the godown and removed the CI sheets from the roof, broke the wall and destroyed the asbestos and 12 packets of phenyl were taken aw ay. Due to removal of CI sheets, rain entered into the godown and many valuable things were destroyed. After receipt of the complaint, learned Magistrate direct ed the police to investigate the matter. Consequently, after receipt of the comp laint police registered a case being Sivasagar PS Case No.342/10 under the above sections of IPC. The petitioner’s further case is that inspite of the registrat ion of the case, police did not take any step to investigate the matter. Therefo re, aggrieved by the inaction of the police authority, the instant writ petition has been field with the aforesaid prayer. This Court vide order dated 8.9.10 directed Mr. Soren, learned State cou nsel to obtain necessary instruction as to the action taken by the police author ity regarding investigation of the aforesaid police case. Mr. Soren has placed before this Court the written instruction by way of status report dated 21.7.10 received from the office of the Superintendent of P olice, Sivasagar. I have perused the written instruction submitted by the learned State co unsel. Perusal of the same would reveal that the case has been duly investigated by the police. Police has visited the place of occurrence, recorded the stateme nt of the witnesses and arrested the accused persons. However, they were granted bail finding no ingredients under Section 379 IPC against them. In the meanwhile, on the same day, i.e. 28.6.10, Mrs. Sofina Begum, W/o Md. Muktar Ali has also lodged an FIR against the petitioner and one Md. Abidur Rahman stating inter alia therein that the petitioner alongwith Md. Abidur Rahma n were damaging the wall of the godown and when the complainant objected the act of vandalism, they started rebuking the complainant using slang language. After receipt of the said complaint, a case was registered being Sivasagar PS Case No .343/10 under Sections 294/447/427/352 IPC against the petitioner and Md. Abidur Rahman. During investigation, the Investigating Officer (I/O) visited the place of occurrence, drew the sketch map, examined the complainant alongwith six witn esses and recorded their statements under Section 161 CrPC. I/O also arrested bo th the accused persons and released them on bail. Investigation is going on agai nst the aforesaid PS Case Nos.342/10 and 343/10 for examination of more witnesse s. In view of the specific stand taken by the authority and upon perusal of the status report, in my considered opinion, no need to drag up the matter any more and the same may be disposed of directing the police authority to investiga te into the matter in accordance with law and do the needful accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost. The written instruction placed before this Court is kept on record and t he same is marked as ’X’ for identification.