(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.
(2.) IN this case utter disregard of established principle of law by the police personnel, specially the officer -in -charge of a police station, has been highlighted for which this court directed the State counsel to file counter affidavit. The allegation against the officer -in -charge of Kotwali police station, Gaya, Respondent no. 8, is very serious and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court from time to time, in my view, the conduct of officer -in -charge of Kotwali police station, Gaya (respondent no. 8) is to be considered seriously.
(3.) THE petitioner no. 1, who was at Patna at that time was informed about this horrified incident and immediately he rushed to Gaya in the night itself. On the next date, that is, on 10.6.2000 a written report with regard to said incident was given to the officer -in -charge, Kotwali police station, Gaya, respondent no. 8 but, it is alleged, he flatly refused to register the criminal case and even directed the petitioners to delete the name of Rajeshwar Prasad Singh and Ramchandra. When the respondent no. 8 refused to register the First Information Report the petitioners on the same very day went to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, who appreciating the agony of the petitioners directed the City Dy. S.P. to look into the matter and report. This note of the D.I.G. on the written complaint is Annexure -1. However, even then no action was taken by the City Dy. S.P., the petitioners filed a petition before the District Magistrate, Gaya as well as Commissioner. When no action was taken even at the end of the District Magistrate and Commissioner, the matter was brought to the Secretary, Bar Association, Gaya and petitioner no. 1, in turn, also informed the matter to the Superintendent of Police for taking appropriate steps in the matter. However, when nothing was done, the matter was reported to the Director General of Police as well as the Home Ministry.