Patna High Court
SIDHU KUMARversusThe State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The petition is dismissed; no writ of mandamus is issued to reopen the investigation.
Summary
Sidhu Kumar filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the police to reopen the investigation into his father's murder, originally registered as FIR No. 20 of 2002 under IPC sections 395, 396 and 397. The police had submitted a final report in 2005, which was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, and the case was deemed closed. The petitioner, who was a minor at the time of the incident, waited until he was 26 years old to file the petition in 2022, alleging that the investigation was inadequate and that he was denied access to the case records. The State argued that the matter had been conclusively investigated, that the petitioner had caused undue delay, and that the final report had attained finality. The Court held that the petition was filed after an inordinate delay, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any defect in the investigation, and the final report could not be reopened under writ jurisdiction, thereby dismissing the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct a fresh criminal investigation after a final police report has been accepted by a court.
- Whether the petitioner’s delay and laches bar the relief sought under writ jurisdiction.
- Whether a minor can file a writ petition after attaining majority without showing a specific grievance.
- Whether the court can reopen a closed criminal case under its writ jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 395, 396, 397
Subjects
- criminal law
- writ jurisdiction
- mandamus
- investigation
- delay
- laches
- IPC
- final police report
- minor
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.727 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2002 Thana- NIMCHAKBATHANI District- Gaya
======================================================
Sidhu Kumar S/o Ajay Kumar Resident of Village- Mahuabag, Kosiawan,
P.S.- Ekangarsarai, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna
Bihar
2. The Director General of Police, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Bailey Road,Patna
Bihar
3. The Inspector General of Police, Magadh Zone, Gaya. Bihar
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya. Bihar
5. The Additional Director General of Police (CID), Sardar Patel Bhawan,
Bailey Road, Patna. Bihar
6. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya Bihar
7. The Investigating Officer, Neemchak Bathani Police Station, Gaya Bihar
8. The Station House Officer, Neemchak Bathani Police Station, Gaya. Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Jagannath Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Md. Harun Quareshi, AC to SC-1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-01-2026
Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or
any other appropriate relief/direction to respondents authority to
conduct further investigation of Neemchak Bathani P.S. Case
No. 20 of 2002 dated 26.07.2002 registered under Sections 395
and 397 of the Indian Penal Code in which, after investigation,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.727 of 2022 dt.13-01-2026
2/5
the police submitted final report No. 13 of 2005 dated
15.05.2005.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
father of the petitioner was murdered and Neemchak Bathani
P.S. Case No. 20 of 2002 was registered on 26.07.2002.
Subsequently, Section 396 IPC was also added apart from
Sections 395 and 397 of IPC. The father of the petitioner was a
truck driver who was killed during a dacoity and the FIR was
instituted at the instance of another truck driver who was also
robbed. The police investigated the matter but finding no clue,
submitted a final report on 15.05.2005 which was accepted by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya. The petitioner was
minor at the time when his father was murdered and on attaining
the age of majority, he made efforts to trace out the real culprit
and gave a number of representations before the authorities but
to no avail. Thereafter, he filed the present writ petition in the
year 2022 seeking further investigation in the matter. Learned
counsel further submits that the petitioner tried to obtain the
record of Neemcak Bathani P.S. Case No. 20 of 2002 from the
record room of Civil Court, Gaya but the said record was not
made available to him. Learned counsel further submits that the
intervention of this Court is needed in the matter to bring out the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.727 of 2022 dt.13-01-2026
3/5
truth and to trace out the real culprit. Therefore, the order may
be passed for further investigation in fair and proper manner.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents-State vehemently opposes the submission made on
behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-
State submitted that the matter was investigated by the police
and a final report has been submitted under Section 396 of IPC
finding no clue in the matter. This report dated 15.05.2005 was
accepted by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gaya, but the petitioner has not taken any steps to reopen the
investigation before the court concerned which has accepted the
final report. After much delay, the petitioner has approached this
Court and the reasons for delay are not satisfactorily explained.
Even if contention of the petitioner about attaining majority is
considered, he slept over the matter and after five years of
attaining majority, he filed the present petition when he attained
the age of 26 years.
5. I have considered the rival submission of the parties
and perused the record.
6. The glaring aspect of the matter is that the instant
writ petition has been filed after much delay and laches. The
explanation that the petitioner was minor when the occurrence
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.727 of 2022 dt.13-01-2026
4/5
took place or the final report was submitted could not cut much
ice. The petitioner must be under tutelage of his guardian who
might have raised the issue at that time. The learned counsel for
the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the mother of
the petitioner is still alive, though he has no instruction about
other siblings of the petitioner and their age.
7. Furthermore, the final report of the police was
accepted by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya
and the order has attained finality for want of challenge.
Reopening the issue, that too, under writ jurisdiction after such
long period of time would be nothing but whipping a dead
horse. The petitioner has further failed to bring to notice of the
Court any other lacunae in the submission of final report or in
the investigation, except making bland assertion about
investigation not proper and has approached this Court after
much delay.
8. The petitioner has, thus, failed to point out any
defect in the investigation except the inability of the police
officials who did not find any clue to proceed in the matter and
also considering the fact that the writ has been preferred after
much delay and this delay continued even after attaining
majority, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.727 of 2022 dt.13-01-2026
5/5
same is dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.01.2026
Transmission Date 13.01.2026
Checking your session…