IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.195 of 2010 BIRENDRA KUMAR MEHTA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 11/ 10.11.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. This application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent authorities of the Police Department, Araria to recover his son Rakesh Kumar alias Mohan, who is alleged to have been kidnapped by the accused persons. The petitioner, in connection with kidnapping of his son, also lodged a criminal case being Forbisganj P.S. Case No. 278 of 2009 on 9.9.2009 under sections 363 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. In the writ application, grievance has been made that the investigating agency is not making any effort to recover his kidnapped son, rather, the police personnel are trying to give protection to the accused persons. The petitioner has already filed a protest petition on 13.10.2009 before the C.J.M., Araria in the case. Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Araria, respondent no. 3. In the supplementary counter affidavit, entire details of investigation and the steps taken by the police in order to recover the kidnapped son of the petitioner have been given. It has been stated in the supplementary counter affidavit that statements of the witnesses were recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the physical description of the boy, his photographs were published in print media and investigating agency also flashed the photographs of 2 the boy in the newspapers through the DIG, Crime Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna. Wireless messages were also sent to different district headquarters but, there was no clue of kidnapped boy. The police officers were also sent to Delhi along with the photographs and other details of the victim boy as soon as the petitioner disclosed that one of the accused namely, Dimpal had made phone call to him from Delhi. In the supplementary counter affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner was persuaded to disclose the phone number from which the call was made by the accused but, it was not disclosed by him. The allegation has been made regarding total non-cooperation with the investigating agency by the petitioner. Giving details of the investigation in different paragraphs of the supplementary counter affidavit, it has been finally stated that the investigating agency has come to the conclusion that Forbesganj P.S. Case No. 278 of 2009 is a false case and, as such, a direction has been issued to the Investigating Officer of the case to take action against the petitioner under sections 182/211 of the IPC and to submit final form, which has already been submitted. Considering the supplementary counter affidavit, we find that the duty assigned to the investigating agency has duly been discharged by the concerned police officers. Though the victim boy is not said to have been recovered but, since it has been found that a false case has been instituted, no further direction is required to be issued to the respondents. 3 This application is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in case the petitioner is dissatisfied with the investigation, he may pursue the protest petition, already filed by him in the court of competent jurisdiction. Anil/ (Mridula Mishra, J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)