Patna High Court
Manju KumariversusThe State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable; the High Court will not direct further investigation.
Summary
Manju Kumari, widow of a deceased, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the police to conduct further investigation in a murder case (Case No. 552/2023) involving alleged threats and phone records of Abhishek Kumar, Komal and Shikha Kumari, which she claims were not examined and that she was not made a prosecution witness. The petition alleged non‑production of Call Detail Records and incomplete investigation. The State argued that the petition is not maintainable, invoking Section 193(9) of the B.N.S.S., which requires aggrieved parties to approach the trial court for further investigation, and contended that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are not applicable once trial has commenced. The Court examined the provisions, noting that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy before the trial court and that writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to seek relief from the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing further police investigation under Section 482 CrPC when the criminal trial has already commenced.
- Whether the petitioner must approach the trial court for further investigation under Section 193(9) of the B.N.S.S. before invoking writ jurisdiction.
- Whether the availability of an alternative remedy bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S.S. — s. 193(9)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173(8), 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 234, 302
Subjects
- mandamus
- further investigation
- writ jurisdiction
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 193(9) B.N.S.S.
- alternative remedy
- criminal procedure
- Call Detail Records
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2693 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-552 Year-2023 Thana- RAMKRISHNANAGAR District- Patna
======================================================
Manju Kumari Wife of Late Ashwani Kumar Resident of House No 41
Village -Tetrawan P.O -Tetrawan P.S- Manpur Tetrawan District -Nalanda
Bihar 803101
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna bihar
2. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, patna Bihar
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Dist- Patna, Bihar Bihar
4. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Ram Krishna nagar, Patna Bihar
5. The Station House officer (SHO), Ramkrishna Nagar Police Station, Patna,
bihar Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, AC to GP-20
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking
following relief(s):-
"I. Issue an appropriate writ of Mandamus,
or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, commanding the Respondents to
conduct further/Additional investigation in
Ramkrishna Nagar P.S. Case No. 552/2023,
particularly with respect to the threats made
to the Petitioner on her mobile phone by
Abhishek Kumar on 04/09/2023 at 9.55 p.m.,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2693 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
2/7
as recorded in the charge sheet, in relation
to her deceased son Ashutosh Kumar; for the
role of Abhishek Kumar in the incident, has
not been adequately investigated; and the
Respondent's failure to incorporate the
Petitioner as a Prosecution Witness or to
produce her Call Detail Records (CDRs),
despite specific mention of the same in the
charge sheet;
II. And for the issuance of a writ of
Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ,
directing for a proper and fair investigation
into the role of Komal and Shikha Kumari in
the incident, inasmuch as the charge sheet
itself records that the mobile location of
komal bearing number 8292359787 was
found within a distance of 300 metres from
the place of occurrence at the relevant time
and numerous calls were made by Abhishek
Kumar to Shika Kumari on her mobile
number 7488919934 emanating from the
location of the occurrence. Call Detail
Records (CDRs) of komal and Shikha
Kumari, have not been produced thereby
rendering the investigation incomplete and
necessitating appropriate directions from
this Hon'ble Court;
III. For grant of any other
appropriate Writ, Order/Orders or Direction
as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2693 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
3/7
proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case, in the interest of justice."
3. From perusal of record, it transpires that
Ramkrishna Nagar P.S. Case No. 552 of 2023, dated 05.09.2023
has been registered under Section 302/234 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act on fardbeyan of
Chaukidar Dina Paswan after recovery of a dead body. After
investigation police made a number of persons as accused in this
case and submitted charge sheet vide Charge Sheet No. 01/2024,
dated 13.01.2024 and supplementary charge sheet vide Charge
Sheet No. 233/25, dated 14.03.2025. The grievance of the
petitioner is that one Abhishek Kumr and two ladies Komal and
Shikha Kumari have not been made accused or police did not
properly investigate the matter. However, these persons have not
been made respondents in the present case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the investigation has not been made properly in the present case
and the police authorities have failed to make the petitioner as a
witness in the present case and further failed to investigate the
phone record of the petitioner as well as one Abhishek Kumar
and Komal. Though said Abhishek Kumar threatened the
petitioner that the son of the petitioner will face dire
consequence, if he did not end his proximity with aforesaid
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2693 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
4/7
Komal. Learned counsel further submits that even the call
details of other co-accused persons were not investigated in this
case and thus, the investigation has been made in perfunctory
manner and the accused persons have been got bail from the
learned trial court. Learned counsel refers to the case of
Devendra Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw
(SC) 835 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1768 of 2022, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in an appropriate case,
where the High Court feels that the investigation is not in the
proper direction and to do complete justice where the facts of
the case so demand, the inherent powers under Section 482
CrPC could be exercised to direct further investigation or even
re investigation. Learned counsel further submits that Section
173(8) CrPC do not limit or affect such powers of the High
Court to pass an order under Section 482 CrPC for further
investigation or re investigation, if the High Court is satisfied
that such a course is necessary to secure the ends of justice.
Therefore, there is urgent need for order to the police authorities
to further investigate the matter so that real culprits could be
punished. On query, the learned counsel submits that the matter
is at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State-
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2693 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
5/7
respondents submits that the present writ petition is not
maintainable in the light of specific provisions of law. Learned
counsel refers Section 193(9) of B.N.S.S. to stress the point that
the petitioner should have approached the learned trial court as
Section 193(9) provides that further investigation during trial
might be conducted with the permission of the court trying the
case. Therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to intervene
in the matter as the petitioner has not approached the learned
trial court with prayer for further investigation in the matter.
Learned counsel also submits that the reliance placed on
Devevendra Nath Singh (supra) is not relevant for the purpose
of the present case since in the case of Devendra Nath Singh
(supra) the matter was at the stage of cognizance and trial has
not commenced.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties. Section 193(9) of B.N.S.S. reads
as under.
"...(9) Nothing in this section shall be
deemed to preclude further investigation in
respect of an offence after a report under
sub-section (3) has been forwarded to the
Magistrate and, where upon such
investigation, the officer in charge of the
police station obtains further evidence, oral
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2693 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
6/7
or documentary, he shall forward to the
Magistrate a further report or reports
regarding such evidence in the form as the
State Government may, by rules, provide;
and the provisions of sub-sections (3) to (8)
shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to
such report or reports as they apply in
relation to a report forwarded under sub-
section (3):
Provided that further investigation during
the trial may be conducted with the
permission of the Court trying the case and
the same shall be completed within a period
of ninety days which may be extended with
the permission of the Court."
7. The provision makes it clear that a person
aggrieved by the investigation can approach the court concerned
if investigation has not been conducted in proper manner.
Further the proviso to Section 193(9) makes it clear that if trial
has commenced, further investigation could be conducted with
the permission of the court trying the case and the same shall be
completed within a period of ninety days which may be
extended further with the permission of the court. Apparently,
the petitioner has got an alternative and equally efficacious
remedy for the same. The petitioner has not availed the remedy
to approach the learned trial court seeking further investigation
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2693 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
7/7
in the matter and has directly come before this Court by filing
the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Therefore, the instant petition could not be entertained
having regard to availability of alternative remedy since Writ
jurisdiction is an extra ordinary remedy. The reliance placed on
Devendra Nath Singh (supra) is misplaced as the petition has
not been filed under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS and trial has
commenced. If the trial has proceeded in the matter as learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is at the stage
of prosecution evidence, this Court would not like to interfere in
the matter and would relegate the petitioner to approach learned
trial court with her grievance. Moreover, the learned trial court
is better suited to supervise further investigation and pass
necessary direction as and when required.
8. Accordingly, finding the writ petition to be not
entertainable by this Court, the same is dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.01.2026
Transmission Date 13.01.2026
Checking your session…