IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14605 of 2006 SAROJ KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 1.7.2009 After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the private respondent and the learned counsel for the Bihar State Election Commission what emerges from the record is that a complaint case was filed against the returned candidate way back in the year, 1999 but the police record did not show that any warrant of arrest is pending to be executed or any attachment to be made under section 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. To that extent it cannot be said that the returned candidate had personal knowledge of the case and he intentionally suppressed the fact. Now learned counsel for respondent no.6 does admit that a complaint case was filed in the year, 1999 and he has become aware of the same after filing of the complaint. The Court can only observe that even if there was suppression of the fact then the competent authority will have to lodge an FIR for such a suppression. Not filing of the information and such allegation will have to be adjudicated after considering the materials, showing that the stand taken by respondent no.6 is correct. That is why no direction can be issued from the Court for institution of the case at this stage. The District Magistrate will be obliged to examine the matter if the petitioner produces the ordersheet of the trial showing and - 2 - establishing of the above fact after hearing the parties. This writ application is disposed of with the above observation. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)