IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.335 of 2007 Mrs.Anu Shukla wife of Sri Vijay Kumar Shukla, Managing Director of M/s Shivani Construction Private Limited, resident of Naya Tola, Muzaffarpur, P.S. Kazi Mohammadpur, Distt. Muzaffarpur. …Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Superintendent of Police, Vaishali 3. Officer-in-Charge of Goraul P.S., Distt. Vaishali 4. Investigating Officer of Goraul (Kathara O.P.), P.S. Case No.3 of 2007), Distt. Vaishali 5. Assistant Engineer, Road Division, Mahua, District Vaishali …Respondents ----------- 7 24.2.2009 The petitioner who is the Managing Director of M/s Shivani Construction Pvt. Limited has prayed for quashing the F.I.R. of Goraul (Kathara) P.S.Case No.3 of 2007 dated 5.1.2007 under sections 188, 283, 336, 420, 409/34 of the Penal Code instituted on the basis of written report of Assistant Engineer, Road Construction, Vaishali Road Divison, Hajipur. The main contention of the petitioner is that even assuming the entire prosecution case to be true, no cognizable offence would be made out either against the petitioner or her partnership firm. In the written report the informant made three allegations; firstly it was alleged that after doing the box cutting, no steps for security was taken which may probably cause hurt to some people; secondly the metals which were extracted in course of box cutting was causing obstruction in the movement of the people and thirdly in spite of repeated direction the articles of inferior quality was not removed from the work site. Learned counsel for the State submits that in spite of repeated direction, the inferior quality of materials stored at site was not removed. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner - 2 - KHAN submits that the alleged inferior quality of materials were not used and have been removed from the work site. However, it is undertaken that in case authorities have any grievance left, he would replace the materials. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the first two allegations do not depict cognizable offence. At best the same could be termed as petitioner not taking sufficient precautions. The petitioner should be cautious so as to ensure that the work site does not cause any harm or obstruction to the people. In view of the nature of allegation leveled against the petitioner, this court is further of the view that if the petitioner files a representation before the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna, within four weeks from today, in support of her claim that she had not made any violation of terms of agreement and has removed all the inferior quality of materials from the work site, he would look into the matter and may give due instructions. No coercive action would be taken against the petitioner for four weeks in order to enable her to file a representation, as indicated above. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)