IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1024 of 2010 PUTUL DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 05. 25.04.2011 As prayed for, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add Superintendent of Police, Muzuffarpur as respondent no. 9. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved on account of the lodging of the first information report vide Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 67 of 2010 registered on 21st of August 2010 for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the aforesaid case has been lodged on the written report of the Block Development Officer vide letter no. 254 dated 21st of August 2010 as contained in Annexure- 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being the public representative as such, the case ought not to have lodged without proper verification. It is further submitted that on perusal of the report of Sub Inspector of Police (Vigilance) (Annexure-10), it would appear that the allegation of acquiring properties in excess of his income is not substantiated. Learned counsel for the State submits that the allegation against the petitioner made in the first information report is serious in nature. Considering the submissions of the parties and in the opinion of this court, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the investigation of the aforesaid police case be completed expeditiously without unnecessary delay and upon completion of the investigation police report be submitted forthwith. However, the grievances, if any, with regard to investigation, it will be open for the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the concerned Superintendent of Police with relevant details who will look into the matter and take action appropriately as per law and The writ application accordingly stands disposed of. Jagdish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)