IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC NO.640 OF 2009 RAJ KUMARI, WIFE OF GAUTAM MIRNAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOLAPATTI, DURGA MANDIR, WARD NO.8, DALSINGSARAI, POLICE STATION DALSINGSARAI, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR………………………………………………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAMASTIPUR 3. M.C.PANDEY, A.S.I. (INVESTIGATING OFFICER), BIBHUTIPUR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR 4. GAUTAM MIRNAL, SON OF CHANDRA SEKHAR SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PATTA SHOP, GOLA PATTI, DURGA MANDIR, WARD NO.8, DALSINGSARAI, POLICE STATION DALSINGSARAI, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR 5. SANJIT KUMAR, SON OF DWARIKA MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUSTAFAPUR, POLICE STATION BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KURAI, POLICE STATION – BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR……………………………………….…….RESPONDENTS ----------- 2. 22.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. A first information report was instituted by respondent no.5 alleging that respondent no.4 had enticed away and kidnapped his wife, namely, Raj Kumari Devi. Petitioner is also named as Raj Kumari. She claims that she is a wedded wife of respondent no.4. She submits that on account of identity of name, respondent no.5 has lodged this case under misconception. She submits that wife of respondent no.5 is residing somewhere else. - 2 - The present Investigating Officer knows about her but he is not taking steps to recover her. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the Investigating Officer of the case is changed and order for proper investigation is made, the actual wife of respondent no.5 will be recovered and the matter will get settled. In sum and substance, the grievance of the petitioner is against the Investigating Officer of the case. In the circumstances, this Court feels it proper that petitioner along with respondent no.4 should approach the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur with supporting materials to show that she is wife of respondent no.4 and is a different lady than the wife of respondent no.5. The S.P. will look into the matter and if he finds that there are prima facie proof of the petitioner being wife of respondent no.4, he shall order for due protection and shall also order the Investigating Officer to take proper steps for recovery of wife of respondent no.5. In case S.P. finds it appropriate, he may also order for change of the Investigating Officer of the - 3 - case. With aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)