Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 85 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2023 Thana- BARGAINIA District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Singh S/o Kameshwar Prasad Singh R/o Village
                 - Sekhauna Ward No. 21, P.S - Bairgania, District - Sitamarhi
                                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
                  Home, Government of Bihar Bihar
           2.    The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna Bihar
           3.    The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur Bihar
           4.    The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi Bihar
           5.    The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi Bihar
           6.    The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sitamarhi Sadar, District - Sitamarhi Bihar
           7.    The Officer-in-Charge, Bairgania Police Station, Bairgania, District - Sitamarhi
                 Bihar
           8.    The Investigating Officer, Bairgania Police Station, Bairgania, District -
                 Sitamarhi Bihar
           9.    Vaibhav Kumar S/o Karunakar Mishra R/o Village - Dumrawan Ward No. 7, P.S
                 - Bairgania, District - Sitamarhi
           10.    Prasun Kumar S/o Aditya Mishra R/o Village - Dumrawan Ward No. 7, P.S -
                  Bairgania, District - Sitamarhi
                                                                          ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s      :      Mr.Harsh Anuj, Advocate
                 For the Respondent/s :           A.A.G.12
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
                                                  ORAL ORDER
2   25-06-2026                     This petition has been filed for issuance of appropriate

                   writ(s), order(s) direction (s) to the respondents to re-investigate

                   Bairgania P.S. Case No. 55 of 2023 dated 03.03.2023 taking into

                   account the allegation made by the petitioner through his written

                   application dated 28.02.2023, 02.03.2023 and 11.03.2023 in fair and

                   proper way alleging that the respondents have falsified the real crime

                   committed by the accused persons on 27.02.2023 at the house of

                   Aditya Mishra, son of Vishwambhar Mishra of Village Dumarawan,

                   Ward No. 7, P.S. Bairgania, District Sitamarhi and further to initiate

                   departmental proceeding against the then Respondent No. 7 and

                   Respondent No. 8 since the then Respondent nos. 7 and 8 have failed

                   to discharge their statutory obligation in fair way.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 85 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
                                            2/3




                       02. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner gave a written report dated 28.02.2023 to respondent no. 7

          making a complaint against one Vaibhav Kumar who drew out a

          pistol and opened firing in a marriage ceremony but no action was

          taken. Again on 02.03.2023, the petitioner gave a representation to

          respondent no. 6 making specific complaint against respondent no. 7

          but again no action was taken. However, police instituted a case on

          03.03.2023 bearing Bairgania P.S. Case No. 55 of 2023 for offences

          under Section 506 of the IPC and Section 66(A) of the IT Act against

          Vaibhav Kumar on the information given by local chowkidar and not

          on the application of the petitioner in order to save respondent nos. 9

          and 10. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner also gave

          a representation to respondent no. 5 on 11.03.2023 giving details

          regarding commission of crime and for proper action on respondent

          nos. 7 and 8 but no action was taken. Further, after investigation a

          final report has been submitted in Bairgania P.S. Case No. 55 of 2023

          absolving the accused. Therefore, the police authorities may be

          directed to re-investigate the matter in an impartial and fair manner.

                       03. Perused the record.

                       04. Apparently, First Information Report was not instituted

          at the instance of the petitioner and when a closure report has been

          filed in First Information Report which was registered at the instance

          of some other person, the petitioner being an interloper or busybody

          has no business asking for re-investigation in the matter. If the
             Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 85 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
                                                         3/3




                       petitioner was aggrieved by inaction on his application or

                       representations, he could have approached this Court without

                       any delay but chose not to do so. If interlopers or busybodies are

                       allowed to intervene in cases registered by other persons

                       without any locus standi, there would be no end to it and the

                       investigation would continue ad infinitum.

                                    05. From perusal of the record, I also find that the

                       petitioner and respondent nos. 9 and 10 are not on good terms

                       and both sides have instituted criminal cases against each other.

                       Therefore, the petitioner has an axe to grind against the

                       respondent nos. 9 and 10. Moreover it also shows if the case had

                       been registered against respondent nos. 9 and 10 at the instance

                       of the petitioner, the allegation of bias against respondent nos. 7

                       and 8 does not have much merit.

                                     06. In the light of these facts and circumstances, I am

                       of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is

                       completely misconceived and could not be entertained under

                       Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

                                    07. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed

                       of.


                                                 (Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
U