IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.54 of 2008 1.SHASHI PRASAD SINHA @ SHASHI PRASAD YADAV @ Shashi Prasad Yadav son of late Yamuna Prasad. 2. Gulabo Devi wife of late Yamuna Prasad 3. Sangita Devi wife of Shashi Prasad Sinha @ Shashi Prasad Yadav 4. Sunita Kumari daughter of late Yamuna Prasad, all are residents of Mohalla Ashok Nagar, Road No. 14-A P.S. Kankarbagh, Dist. Patna …..Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR through Chief Secretary 2. Director General of Police, Bihar at Patna. 3. Senior Superintgendent of Police, Patna. 4.Anumandal Police Officer, Sadar, patna (Dy.S.P.) 5. Dist. Commandant, Home Guard, Bihar Grih Rakksha Wahini, Patna 6. Officer Incharge of Mahila Koshang, Kotwali P.S., Dist. Patna. 7. Zila padadhikari, Patna. 8.Sita Kumari @ Sita Kumar Chauhan @ Sita Devi @ Satya Sanyasi daughter of late kriishna Bihari sing and wife of Raj Kumar Singh temporarily of Mohalla Yarpur (New) Road near Sant Paul School , P.S. Gardanibagh tenant of house of owner Shakuni Rai Dist. Patna . Permanent Address of village Chameta, P.O.Oriawan, Dist. Nalanda 9. Indra Devi wife of late Krishna Bihari Singh contstgable Home Guard,Danapur C/o Amarjit Singh Mohalla Anand Bazar, Danapur, Dist. Patna. 10. Officer-incharge, Patliputrta, P.S. Patna. ……. Respondents. ----------- 4 27.04.2009 This application has been filed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to pay adequate compensation to the petitioners. It is case of the petitioners that a Kotwali P.S. case no. 226 of 2000 was lodged against the petitioners under section 498A and 494/34 of the Indian Penal Code and which charge sheet was submitted . It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that due to lack of sufficient evidence in the case petitioners have been acquitted in the case and they have suffered a lot, therefore, adequate compensation may be given to them. In my view, even if the petitioners have been acquitted in the case, no direction can be given for granting compensation as any - 2 - malafie was not substantiated against the police. If petitioners feel that they were maliciously prosecuted, they can take action for malicious prosecution. But for that evidence is required. The writ petition is not proper remedy. I do not find any merit in this application and the same is dismissed with liberty to resort to any other remedy available to the petitioners. (J.B. Koshy, CJ) Rahman/