IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.7403 of 2010 Date of decision: 24.02.2011 ------------------------------------------------- Gulshan Kumar Dogra Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. For the petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with No. 1 and 2. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent No.3 : Mr. Himmat Negi, Advocate vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent No.4 : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. Justice Kurian Joseph,C.J.(Oral): The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the erring police official, particularly respondent No. 4 for dereliction of duties and for recording false statements and preparing a false report, in accordance with law. ii) That further writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondent No. 2 to initiate 2 appropriate proceedings against respondent No. 4 for lodging false complaints against the present petitioner, in accordance with law. 2. In the nature of the order, we propose to pass in this case, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the case and we are not granting opportunity to file rebuttal replies. We are of the view that some higher authority in the Police Department should look into the matter. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: 3. In the event of the petitioner approaching the Inspector General of Police, within one month from today, the matter be duly considered by the said authority within another three months. We make it clear that the contentions raised in this Writ Petition are left open. The petitioner will submit a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the Writ Petition before the said authority. In view of the submission that the petitioner is in armed forces, it is made clear that the memorandum of the petitioner will be treated as a representation. Pending 3 applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice February 24, 2011 ( Justice V.K. Ahuja ) (SDS/ krt) Judge