IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.373 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-361 Year-2021 Thana- KESARIA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Madhusudan Singh, Son of Uday Bhanu Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Sri Krishna Nagar, Motihari, P.S.- Motihari Town in the district of East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar Through The Director General Of Polce Bihar, Patna Bihar 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range at Muzaffarpur. Bihar 4. The Superintendent of Police East Champaran at Motihari Bihar 5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chakia in the district of East Champaran at Motihari. Bihar 6. The Officer- in-Charge, Kesaria, P.S. in the district of East Champaran. Biahr 7. The Sub Inpector- Cum Investigation Officer, Kisariya P.S. in the district of East Champaran. Bihar 8. Abha Kumari w/o Amresh Kumar, Block Development Officer, Kesariya Block, Distt.- East Champaran. At Motihari, Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate,. For the State : Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AG-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10 15-06-2026 The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of First Information Report bearing Kesariya P.S. Case No. 361 of 2021 lodged on 12.10.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 189, 171(c), 353 and 120(B) of the Indian Pewnal Code. However, charge Sheet bearing No. 155 of 2022 dated 24.09.2022 has been filed against the petitioner and co-accused Sudhir Singh as per supplementary Patna High Court CR. WJC No.373 of 2022(10) dt.15-06-2026 2/2 counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 04 for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 189, 171(c), 353 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is further informed by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State that even cognizance has been taken against the petitioner. 4. Hence, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking permission to withdraw the present petition giving liberty to prefer appropriate remedy against the cognizance order passed by learned Trial Court against the petitioner. 5. Permission is accorded 6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty as sought for by learned counsel for the petitioner. S.Ali/- (Jitendra Kumar, J) U T