IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.332 of 2007 NAWAL KISHORE PATHAK Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 10 22.09.2008. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for restraining police officials of Rohtas district in general and specially the Kargahar police station from terrorizing and harassing him and his family members at the instance of private respondents. 3. The petitioner has further prayed for transferring the investigation of all the criminal cases including Kargahar p.s.case no. 76 of 2006 including Kagahar ps case no. 59 of 2006, 137 of 2006 and 162 of 2006 instituted against him either by respondent no.6 or at his behest by some of the other respondents including his family members. 4. One of the grounds urged for transfer of the aforesaid case is that respondents in connivance with police officer has implicated him in various cases as he and his family members were witness in one of the earlier cases filed against some of the private respondents. 5. Before examining the issues in question it would be necessary to note in brief the submissions of the petitioner as well as respondents in brief. 6. Case of the petitioner is that respondent no.6, namely, Hridya Nand Pathak is a person of dubious character engaged in unscrupulous activities. He had an evil eye on the properties of an issueless couple, namely, Parsuram Pathak and Raj Muni Kunwar. After death of Parsuram Pathak, his wife Raj Muni Kunwar filed a mutation petition before Anchal Adhikari, Kargahar being case no. 2333 of 2005, which was allowed by the Anchal Adhikari vide order - 2 - 3.2.2006 in her favour. Respondent no. 6 in order to grab the property of helpless widow, filed a case in the court of Sub judge, Rohtas bearing Sasaram case no.72 of 2006, dated 20.2.2006, on the basis of a forged deed of adoption dated 14.1.1995 said to be executed by Parsuram Pathak and his wife Raj Muni Kunwar adopting Awadh Bihari Pathak, the second son of respondent no.6, as their son. On the strength of a forged death certificate dated 20.2.2006, respondent no.6 falsely stated in para 9 of the plaint that widow of said Parsuram Pathak, namely, Raj Muni Kunwar has also died, a copy of the plaint of case no. 72/06, forged deed of deposition dated 14.1.1995 and forged death certificate dated 20.2.2006 have been annexed as annexure 1 series. 7. When Rajmuni Kunwar came to know about the fraudulent act, she herself appeared in court with certified copy of a Jan Sevak dated 24.4.2006, annexure 2. Rajmuni Kunwar consequently filed Compliant case No. 391 of 2006, annexure 3 against respondent no.6 and some other accused persons under sections 420,467,468,471,120B I.P.C. In this complaint, father and uncle of petitioner were witness on behalf of said Raj Muni Kunwar. As respondent no.6 could not succeed in his design to cheat Raj Mui Kunwar, he started implicating him in series of cases in connivance with local police. Respondent no.6 filed case himself or through his family members including respondent nos.7 to 9. Some of such cases which have been got filed by him are as follows:- (a) Karghar (Sidhi) P.S.Case No. 76 of 2006 dated 9.7.2006 u/s 395 & 397 I.P.C. filed by respondent no.6. (b) Complaint Case No.984/2006 dated 5.9.2006 u/s 376.511.323 & 450 I.P.C. filed by Kalawati Devi, wife of relative of respondent no.6. ( C ) Complaint Case No.1290/2006 dated 28.11.2006 u/s 323,376 & - 3 - 379 I.P.C. filed by aforesaid Kalawati Devi. (d) Karghar (Sidhi) PS Case No. 137/2006 dated 14.11.2006 u/s 341,342,323 & 34 I.P.C. filed by Ramashish Pathak. 8. It is further submitted that in the meantime there was a murderous attack on Janardan Pathak, father of the petitioner on 11.12.2006 by Hridyanand Pathak by his sons Sonu Pathak and Awadhesh Bihari Pathak for which petitioner’s father filed Karghar (Sidhi) PS case no. 159 of 2006 on 11.12.2006 itself. Respondent no.6 then got a false case registered being Karghar (Sidhi) PS Case No. 162/2006, dated 19.12.2006 u/s 447,324,307,504 & 34 I.P.C. filed by Bishranti Devi, wife of respondent no.7. In this case, petitioner, his father, brothers and other relatives were implicated. The petitioner states that it is a tragedy that the case filed by petitioner promptly on the date of occurrence itself i.e. 11.12.2006 was found to be false by Dy.S.P., who has now been transferred on allegations, whereas the case in respect of same occurrence filed by wife of respondent no.7, eight days after occurrence, was stated to be true. When the aforesaid facts came to the knowledge of the superior police officers the I.O. and the Dy.S.P. concerned were transferred but much after they had done the damage. 9. In such a situation, petitioner has prayed for transferring of all these cases to another investigating agency for providing fair investigation. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.6 as well as other respondents filed separate affidavits. In their affidavits they denied the allegations made by the petitioner and stated that except for Karghar (Sidhi) PS case no. 59 of 2007 arising out of Complaint case no. 1290 of 2006 filed by wife of respondent no.6 against the petitioner and his uncle, charge sheet has been - 4 - submitted in all the other cases. Learned counsel for respondents relied upon the decisions of this Court rendered in M/S Ashutosh and company Vs State of Bihar and others and S.Vasu Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 1995(2) PLJR 333 and 2008(2) SCC page 409 respectively, in support of their contentions that writ petition would not be maintainable. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon various decisions including the decision rendered in the case of S.Vasu (Supra) as mentioned above. 12. It is well settled by now that in case if the investigation is defective or not being carried out in accordance with law, then this Court can pass appropriate order for ensuring free and fair investigation. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that final form have been submitted in most of the cases except for Karghar (Sidhi) PS case no. 59 of 2007 in which final form has been submitted on 30.11.2007 stating the case to be false. 13. In the circumstances, it would be open to the petitioner to file appropriate applications with supportive materials in respect of his claim that investigations have not been conducted fairly. The respondents will be too entitled to counter such claims. On receipt of such representations, the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas would examine the same and issue appropriate direction to the I.O. of the case if it so warrants. 14. It will be open to the petitioner to pursue other remedies available in law in respect of his grievances. Shashi. (S.P.Singh,J).