IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2569 of 2010 RAGHUNATH GUPTA,S/O LATE RAMASHISH GUPTA, R/O VILLAGE-SHANTI NAGAR NEAR ITI, FACTORY ROAD, BHAGWATI DUM-ROAD, POLICE STATION-SITAMARHI, DISTT- SITAMARHI…………………………………………………..PETITIONER Versus 1. BIMLANAND JHA, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN, THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SITAMARHI IN THE DISTRICT OF SITAMARHI. 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR………………………….…..OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 07/ 03-Nov-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In our view, the order of the Division Bench has been complied with as the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi has concluded the preliminary enquiry as is evident from Annexure-A dated 11.08.2010. Petitioner is not satisfied with the findings arrived at by the District Magistrate in the preliminary enquiry. He wants this Court to rely upon the facts mentioned in a letter of BDO, Parihar (Sitamarhi) dated 1.10.2010 to show that almost the entire money has been adjusted. In exercise of contempt jurisdiction we cannot consider the aforesaid issue whether the money has been adjusted or not. Petitioner may produce that letter before the concerned authorities. The contempt petition is disposed of. 2 Petitioner is given liberty to approach the proper authority including the District Magistrate or any other forum with the correct facts and seek necessary remedy in accordance with law. Sk/perwez (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)