IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.496 of 2008 VIJAY SINGH @ VIJAY KUMAR SINGH @ SARDAR SINGH SON OF SHRI MAHESHWAR SINGH, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – TARAPATTI, P.S. KHAJAULI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI AT PRESENT RESIDING AT QUARTER NO. 29/1/2 CHHOTA GOVINDPUR, P.O. + P.S. CHHOTA GOVINDPUR JAMSHEDPUR – 15, DISTRICT – SINGHBHUM EAST, STATE JHARKHAND. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MADHUBANI. 4. THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE , P.S. KHAJAULI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI 5. ANMOL KUMAR AT PRESENT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CUM OFFICER IN-CHARGE OF KHAJAULI POLICE STATION, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. 6. RINKI DEVI WIFE OF OM PRAKASH SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLATGE TARAPATTI, P.S. KHAJAULI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. 7. PUJA KUMARI D/O- SHRI SUBHASH SINGH AT PRESENT RESIDING AT THE HOUSE OF SHRI BALESHWAR SINGH CHANDRA, VILLAGE TARAPATTI, P.S. KHAUJAULI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. 8. BALESHWAR SINGHY CHANDRA S/O- LATE ANANT LAL SINGH VILLAGE TARAPATTI, P.S. KHAJAULI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. 9. HIRA SINGH, S/O SHRI NAGENDRA NARAYAN SINGH, VILLAGE TARAPATTI, P.S. KHAJAULI DISTRICT MALDHUBANI AT PRESENT MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT SARABE, BLOCK KHAJAULI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. ----------- 03. 18.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the first information report vide Khajauli P.S. Case No. 2 of 2008 for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 468, 469, 493, 388, 384 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that petitioner and the officer-in-charge of the aforesaid police station were having love affairs with the grand daughter (Natini) of the informant and as such, the present case was lodged against the petitioner at the behest of the officer-in-charge of the Khajauli police station. Learned counsel for the State submits that on perusal of the First information report, it would appear that the allegation attributed against the petitioner discloses the commission of the alleged offences on the part of the petitioner and as such, prayer of the petitioner for quashing the first information report cannot be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the first information report is not quashed, the aforesaid police case deserves to be properly investigated since the petitioner has apprehension that the officer-in- charge of the said police station has got personal interest in the matter and he happens to be the investigating officer of the said case. Considering the rival submission of the parties, in case petitioner has got any apprehension that investigation is not properly done, it will be open for the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the concerned superintendent of police to look into the matter in accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)