1. An intervention petition has been filed by the informant being I.A. No. 609 of 2006 even though on the face in the present proceedings she has absolutely no locus standi and her very present shows her acute animous. I say nothing more but allow the intervention petition.

2. The counsels have been heard both with regard to intervention and on the merits of the Writ application.

3. The State has filed a counter affidavit in support of its action.

4. Heard the parties and with the consent of the parties this writ application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

5. The petitioners grievance is not with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the prosecution nor is with regard to the correctness of otherwise of the investigation or the chargesheet but his grievance is i as against the investigating agency and in particular their actions who deliberately violated the law only for the purpose of harassing and humiliating the petitioner and her old husband in flagrant disregard to the procedure established by law.

6. The facts are that the intervenor, who is the informant alleges to be married to the son of the petitioner. Marriage was solemnized on 11.6.2004. It is alleged that the informant was thrown out of her matrimonial home on 16.5.2005. On 19.5.2005 the informant lodged the FIR giving rise to Madhubani Town RS. Case No. 156 of 2005, which was registered under Section 498/34 IPC read with Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

7. The records were then forwarded to the learned C.J.M. and received by him on 20.6.2005. On 24.5.2005 i.e. within four days of the case being registered, the investigating officer filed an application before the learned C.J.M. praying for non bailable warrants to be issued against the accused persons who were the petitioner, her husband, who is a leading medical practitioner and her son, who is the husband of the informant saying that the son was preparing to go abroad and as such non bailable warrants be issued against all the three persons. The learned C.J.M. immediately passed order issuing non bailable warrants. Nowhere in the said application the police said or disclosed as to why they were unable to apprehend the accused persons on their own and why non bailable warrants were required from the court. I mention this because in course of investigation of a cognizable offence under the provisions of Cr.P.C. the police has authority to arrest a person without warrant and therefore when this normal procedure is to be departed from, police is expected to give cogent reason for seeking the indulgence of the court and the court does not mechanically grants such a prayer but must record reason and satisfaction for doing so.

8. The warrants having been immediately issued on 24.5.05 itself, the police then six days later filed an application before the learned C.J.M. i.e. on 30.5.2005 stating that the accused persons are absconding and as such the court should issue processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. Immediately, once again the learned C.J.M. by order dated 25.5.2005 obliges and directs issuance of processes under Section 82 Cr.P.C. without there being any application supported by affidavit and without first issuing proclamation giving time to appear.

9. It is not in dispute that on the 3rd of June, 2005 anticipatory bail application was filed on behalf of the petitioner and her husband before the learned District Judge, Madhubani. The learned Sessions Judge called for a report from the investigating officer for disposal of the said anticipatory bail application, as filed by the petitioner and her husband. On 9.6.2005 the investigating officer returned the processes issued as obtained under Section 82 Cr.P.C. to the court of C.J.M. stating that they were unable to apprehend the accused persons who were now removing their properties and as such it was not possible to arrest them and accordingly returned the warrants/proclamation received under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and prayed