IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.448 of 2010 1. DEV NANDAN PASWAN 2. JAY RAM PASWAN 3. JAY NANDAN PASWAN 4. SITA NANDAN PASWAN ALL FOUR ARE SON OF CHOTEN PASWAN 5. CHOTAN PASWAN SON OF LATE RAM KHELAWAN PASWAN 6. BAHADUR PASWAN SON OF LATE GOBARDHAN PASWAN 7. RAJ KUMAR PASWAN SON OF RAM BABU PASWAN 8. RAMJIT SON OF GHUTAN PASWAN. 9. SIYARAM PASWAN SON OF CHOTAN PASWAN 10. BOTAL PASWAN SON OF LATE RAMCHANDRA PASWAN ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – KOSIAMA SIKARIA, P.O. BARAMBA, P.S. KAKO PALI, DISTRICT JEHANABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY CUM-COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF HOME, POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE D.I.G. MAGADH RANGE, GAYA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, JEHANABAD. 5. THE I.O., P.S. PALI (KAKO) DISTRICT – DHANBAD 6. THE BIHAR STATE HINDU RELIGIOUS TRUST BOARD THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR SRI KISHORE KUNAL. 7. SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE BHAGWATI PD. SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOSIAMA SIKARIA, P.S. PALI (KAKO) DISTRICT JEHANABAD. ----------- 05. 31.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of 2 the respondent nos. 4, 6 and 7. The grievance of the petitioners in sum and substance is to the effect that although the petitioner is a legally authorized functionary to manage trust and acknowledged by the respondent no. 6 as well, however, the petitioners are being harassed by the respondent no. 7 who claims right, title and interest over the property in question. Besides the above, the grievance of the petitioners is that they are being maliciously prosecuted at the behest of the respondent no. 7 and the first information reports have been lodged against the petitioners as mentioned in Annexure-4 and 11 of the writ application as also Annexure- 17 of the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 7 disputes the claim of the petitioners over the property in question. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 (Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad) stating therein to the effect that the subject is claim and counter claim over the property in question. Considering the submission of the parties, notwithstanding the rival claims over the property in question it goes without saying that the investigation of the police case as per the first information reports vide 3 Annexure- 6 and 11 of the writ application as also Annexure- 17 of the supplementary affidavit i.e. Jehanabad Pali P.S. Case No. 56 of 2008 registered on 22th of November 2008, P.S. Case No. 57 of 2008 registered on 27th of November 2008, P.S. Case No. 34 of 2009 registered on 07.08.2009, P.S. Case No. 50 of 2009 registered on 16.10.2009, P.S. Case No. 69 of 2009 registered on 30.12.2009 and P.S. Case No. 60 of 2009 registered on 21.11.2009 in case still pending, the same may be completed expeditiously without unnecessary delay and upon completion of the investigation, police report be submitted forthwith. However, in case petitioners have any grievance with respect to the investigation of the aforesaid cases, it will be open for the petitioners to bring it to the notice of the respondent no. 4 who will look into the matter as per law without unnecessary delay. With respect to the grievance of the petitioner that petitioner needs protection, it will be open for him to make representation before the respondent no. 4 which shall be considered in accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed of. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)