IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.400 of 2007 SHAKIL KHAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PATNA ZONE, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PATNA RANGE, PATNA 4. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA 5. THE CITY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA 6. THE OFFICER INCHARGE OF GANDHI MAIDAN POLICE STATION, PATNA 7. THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER OF GANDHI MAIDAN P.S.CASE NO.108/2007 8. M/S MERRIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED 9. MD.NASEEM SON OF LATE MD.YUNUS ----------- 6 29.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as learned appearing on behalf of Respondent no.8. In the instant writ petition the petitioner, who is the informant of this case, prays for a direction to the respondent authorities for conducting proper investigation in Gandhi Maidan P.S.Case No.108 of 2007 dated 3.4.2007 lodged by the petitioner under sections 461 and 379 of the Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a tenant of a shop situated in Exhibition Road, Patna under Gandhi Maidan Police Station since the year 1982. The land lord entered into a development agreement with the Developer on 21.4.2004 for developing the land over which the shop of the petitioner is also situated. He further submits that the petitioner has filed Title Suit No.405 of 2004, in the court of the Sub Judge IV, Patna, who by order dated 16.4.2005 directed the parties to maintain status quo over the - 2 - suit property in question. It is submitted that the aforesaid order of status quo has also been confirmed by the learned Sub Judve IV, Patna by his order dated 28.6.2005, as contained in Annexure-2. Learned counsel further submits that Vigilance Case No.23B of 2006 instituted on the complaint filed by the petitioner is also pending before the erstwhile P.R.D.A. which body is now replaced by the Patna Municipal Corporation. It would be open to the petitioner to pursue the aforesaid case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.8 submits that the petitioner has not come with clean hands and in fact final form has been submitted on 25.4.2007. He submits that it would appear from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State that the status quo order of the learned court below has not been violated. He further submits that the Map has duly been sanctioned by the P.R.D.A. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I may agree with the submission of the petitioner that he may not be having knowledge that final form in this case has been submitted ten days prior to the institution of the instant case. In view of the fact that final form has already been submitted, the remedy of the petitioner would be by way of persuing the protest petition which he has already filed. This court also finds that there cannot be two views that once the status quo order has been passed by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, no construction or development in violation of the same can be resorted to by any of the parties. In such situation, it - 3 - KHAN goes without saying that all concerned would abide by the status quo order dated 16.4.2005 passed by the learned Sub Judge IV, Patna in T.S. No. 405 of 2004, unless and until the same stands altered. It would be open to either of the parties for making a prayer before the court concerned for expeditious disposal of the case. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)