IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. W.J.C. No.38 of 2011 SIYA RAM SAH, son of Late Ram Naresh Sah, resident of Village Madhopur Committee Chowk, P.S. Turkauliya, District East Champaran ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran at Motihari. 3. Block Supply Officer, Turkauliya, East Champaran. 4. The Officer-in-Charge, Turkauliya P.S., East Champaran. ---Respondents ----------- 2. 31.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the First Information Report of Turkauliya Police Station Case No.271/09 registered on 20th October, 2009 for the alleged offences under section 409 of the Penal Code and section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. On account of the lodging of the First Information Report, the licence of the petitioner, who was a registered Public Distribution System dealer, was suspended. It is submitted that the aforesaid First Information Report has been lodged without proper verifying the records, which would be apparent on perusal of the letter written by the Officer-in-Charge of the said Police Station to the Subdivisional Officer, Sadar, Motihari seeking certain clarifications as to whether any irregularity was committed in distribution of the kerosene oil or not, vide Annexure 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the investigation is still pending and the investigating officer of - 2 - the case would be taking all permissible steps available to him in law during investigation to find out the truth of the matter. Considering the submission of the parties, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the aforesaid police case be investigated expeditiously without unnecessary delay and upon completion of the investigation, police report be submitted forthwith. It is further directed that it will be open for the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the Superintendent of Police with respect to the grievances, if any, with respect to investigation of the aforesaid case, which will be looked into by the Superintendent of police as per law. The prayer of the petitioner that the investigating officer should proceed with the investigation only after receiving the report of the Sub-divisional Officer, as contained in Annexure 3, is not justified. The said prayer is, accordingly, rejected. The writ application thus stands disposed of. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)