IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.613 of 2008 RAMESHWAR YADAV SON OF DHANPATI YADAV,RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DAMODARPUR, P.S. SHAHPUR, DIST. BHOJPUR …….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, D.G.P. OFFICE,OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE DIRIECTOR INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (D.I.G.), SHAHABAD RANGE, AT DEHI, DIST. ROHTAS. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BHOJPUR, AT ARA, 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, JAGDISHPUR, DIST. BHOJPUR. 6. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, UDWANT NAGAR, P.S. DIST. BHOJPUR ….. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 26.2.2009 This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinvestigate/ inquire Udwant Nagar P.S. case No. 22 of 2004 registered under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Further prayer made by the petitioner is for disposal of the representation dated 17.1.2008 whereby the petitioner had requested for reinvestigation of the aforesaid case. Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra appears on behalf of the petitioner. State is represented by Assistant Counsel to GP.-18. On the basis of the information given by the petitioner alleging commission of offence, Udwant nagar P.S. case no. 22 of 2004 was registered under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. In the first information report the allegation leveled by the petitioner inter-alia is dacoity of tractor bearing registration No. BR 3 B-0653. The case was investigated and it was found to be false. It came during the course of investigation that the petitioner had taken loan to purchase tractor from the State Bank of India, Bihiya Branch but had not deposited a single - 2 - instalment fixed to liquidate the loan. It also came during the course of investigation that the tractor was insured with the United Insurance Company and in order to claim insurance amount false case has been registered. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the conclusion of the investigating officer, he has remedy before the Magistrate to whom the report is submitted. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court shall not direct for reinvestigation or re-inquiry of the case. As regards the representation for reinvestigation of the case I am of the opinion, that there is no right to seek reinvestigation of the case. In my opinion, this writ application is absolutely misconceived and stands dismissed accordingly. Rahman/ (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, ACJ)