IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1136 of 2010 BINODA NAND JHA SON OF LATE JAGARNATH JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHHACHHA , P.S. KEOTI, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISIONER, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA 5. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA 6. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA 7. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DARBHANGA 8. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DARBHANGA 9. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENENT OF POLICE, DARBHANGA 10. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, LAHERIASARAI POLICE STATION, DARBHANGA 11. SANTOSH KUMAR ROY, (CONSTABLE No. 84) SON OF LATE BABAN RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHAWAN DEHRI, P.S. NOKHA DISTRICT- ROHTAS ----------- 3 18.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.Amanullah, learned Government Advocate No. IV appears for the State. In sum and substance, the prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of the first information report of Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 456 of 2010. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid case needs to be investigated by a different agency as according to the petitioner the Investigating Officer did not discharged his duty properly in investigating the case. It is further submitted that the application filed by the petitioner for grant of permit before the respondent no.4 who is the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority, Darbhanga, has been kept pending and the present case has been filed by the Body Guard of the aforesaid respondent no.4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the question of granting permit for running the transport on a particular route is a separate issue for which the petitioner ought to have taken the appropriate recourse of law. As regards the quashing of the first information report is concerned, it is submitted that the police after investigation has already submitted charge sheet in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although charge sheet has been submitted showing the petitioner as absconder, whereas on the date of submission of the charge-sheet petitioner was on anticipatory bail. Considering the submissions of the parties, as regards the grievance of the petitioner with respect to his application for grant of permit pending before the respondent no.4 is concerned, the same is a separate issue which can not be agitated in the present criminal writ application. However, as regards the aforesaid criminal case is concerned, since charge sheet has already been submitted in the case, it will be open for the petitioner to take appropriate legal steps as permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to investigation of the case. The writ application accordingly stands disposed of. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)