IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.140 of 2011 RAJ KUMARI DEVI Wife of Dinesh Pd., resident of Club Raod Aurangabad P.S.Aurangabad town, District Aurangabad -----------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR . 2. Director General of Police, govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad. 4. Deputy Superintendent of Police Aurangabad. 5. Officer in charge Aurangbad Town, P.S- Aurangabad, District Aurangabad. ----------- Respondents For the Petitioner----- Yogesh Chaudra Verma Ashok Kumar For the State--- Prasoon Sinha GA 2. 02.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Aurangabad Police Station Case No. 438 of 2010 registered for the offences under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the son of the petitioner a victim of severe assault by the police was not investigated properly as the investigating officer of the said case was biased against the son of petitioner. Accordingly it is submitted that investigation by such officer and submission of charge sheet against the petitioner’s son, for the above reason cannot be sustained in law and on such charge sheet the cognizance being taken by the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate is equally bad in law. It is further submitted that the informant of the aforesaid case is a Hawaldar of the same police Station the son of the petitioner was virtually assaulted by the police officer of the same police Station due to which the son has sustained grievous injuries and as such a complaint was filed by son of the petitioner vide Complaint Case - 2 - No. 438 of 2010 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad on 3rd of May, 2010. The Said Complaint Case is still pending, however, the mother of the complainant has filed the present writ application. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that although this petitioner’s son never filed any objection/petition before the higher Police Officials expressing any apprehension with regard to the fairness of the investigation, however, when a charge sheet was submitted against the son of the petitioner it was realized that the investigating officer and the police official of the police station were biased against the son of the petitioner who allegedly committed the theft of Rs. 1 lakh from the informant. It is accordingly submitted that this Court may direct for reinvestigation of the aforesaid police case. Mr. Prasoon Sinha the learned Government Advocate No 2 appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits firstly that this writ petition has not been filed by the person aggrieved. The son of the petitioner had filed the complaint alleging his assault at the hands of the police constables including the informant. It is submitted that the police after investigation has submitted the charge sheet on 24th June 2010, and cognizance of the offence alleged was taken on 8th of July 2010, and the writ petition has been filed on 3rd February 2011. It is further submitted that the petitioner or her son who is alleged to have been severely assaulted at no point of time had any objection against the investigation. It is further submitted that as the son of the petitioner was allegedly assaulted and when he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate he was directed - 3 - for his medical treatment, will not be suggestive of the facts, that the informant was biased. The learned Government Advocate submits that further investigation could be taken up only when any fresh material comes before the investigating officer or higher police official with respect to the alleged offence. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the averments made in the writ application as also the supplementary affidavit, I find that the son of the petitioner who was allegedly assaulted by the police officials including informant has filed a complaint case as contained in Annexure 5 to the supplementary affidavit this cannot be a valid ground to say that the investigating officer was biased. In the case in hand, police has submitted charge sheet in cognizance of the alleged offence have been taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad. The case shall be tried on its own merit as per law. It will be open for the accused ( son of the petitioner) to raise all his rights and contentions as if any available in law in the Court below at the appropriate stage. Accordingly this writ application stands disposed of with above observations. Namita ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)