IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.228 of 2008 1. DILIP KUMAR MANDAL, S/O SRI BALDEV MANDAL. 2. BALDEV MANDAL, S/O LATE CHAMARU MANDAL. 3. SHANTI DEVI, W/O SRI BALDEV MANDAL. 4. MEERA DEVI, W/O DILIP KUMAR MANDAL. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BAIDA, P.S.-KADWA, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. …………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR,PATNA. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KATIHAR. 3. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, KADWA, P.S.-KADWA, KATIHAR. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4 14.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This writ application has been filed for a direction to the respondents to make enquiry regarding missing of Poonam Devi, the wife of the petitioner and trace her out as directed by this Court vide order dated 13.2.2007 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 93/2006. It appears that the compliant case was filed against the petitioner and others alleging demand of dowry etc. by the father of the lady. Petitioners moved this Court for quashing the complaint case on the ground that Poonam Devi had been taken away by her parents themselves and she was being concealed in their house and they have instituted the false case. The petitioners also claimed that husband of the victim had filed a Misc. Case for - 2 - restitution of conjugal rights and, therefore, as a retaliation to the same, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Under those circumstances, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court which was however, dismissed by this Court vide Annexure 2 to this writ application with the direction to the S.P., Katihar to make an enquiry and trace out missing Poonam Devi. The petitioner place their claim on the basis of some report of the police claiming that Poonam Devi in fact was being concealed by her parents at her parental home. A counter affidavit has been filed in the case. It appears that the police has not come to a final conclusion in the matter with regard to disappearance of said Poonam Devi. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that a substantive case has been instituted by the father of the petitioner namely petitioner no. 2 with regard to the missing of said Poonam Devi vide complaint case no. 2239 of 2004 and in the said compliant case cognizance has been taken and the case is at the trial stage. - 3 - Since substantive case has already been filed by the father, namely petitioner no. 2 with regard to disappearance of Poonam Devi alleging kidnapping of her by her parents themselves which is pending trial, this Court does not feel inclined to interfere in the matter and pass specific orders. So far as the case and counter case is concerned the police is at liberty to investigate the matter and find out the truthfulness of the case of either parties. However, since the trial of the case instituted by petitioner no. 2 is pending in the trial court, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months. With the above observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)