NAWAL KISHORE PATHAK v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & Ors.

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).