3:5q'^fFTwSq', ^Tdy^ld, RlriW^< *^l<<dl ^b^tch W], 200 anfwwra? (ipf^gqff) •3<ii<i.w RiHi* wnaiTCT tCW ^ SIN6LE BENCH; HON'BLE JUSTfl '.P. N0.2 RESPON&ENTS 20,; Mr. R.S. Baghei, Advocatefo| Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Dy. Advoc< Heard. The petitioner by this pefitj lia has prayed for following r^ "7.1. This Hon'ble Court- mandamus, suitable eji respondents [Proseci^ of The murder case it i>w[<i<fli *<it«'iTif isvt <Fif^K ^3TRPT3IlS?r ;E &HIREN A MISHRA Sanesh Ram|&hruv, aged 44 years, son of Shri Kunwar 4"ngh, Resident of Village- Chsndiyabhctf'ha, [Csongigarh], Police Station- Lorml, Tahsj! Lormi, DisTrict Bilospur [C.&.] 1. Stafe of Chhattisgarh, Through; TTie Secretar^, Department of Home Affairs, t).K.S. Bh<Man, Rdpur (C6) 2. The Colle^tor, &istr!ct Bllaspur [C.6.] 3. The Suplerintendent of Poiice, District Bilaspur y.6.] 4. In-charg4 of Poiice Station, Police Station- Lorml, W^trict Bilaspur [C.©.] the petitioner. I'e Seneral for the State. on under ^rticle 226 of the Const'rrution liefs;- ^oy kindly be pleased to issue writ of irection/directions, order/or-derg to the 'ion agency] regarding the investigation retation to the petitioner's sister'.^s _- .!-WS»ihft-7 !ji;unri<|, tRPICTH—FS/59— 8/2007 —30.000. ifc :s! •?.<A.. ^••':: I'il' •^: ^%killi £-,''..?,''!'. 'Sv^ '^{•U.W^, Vl-^WIQ, RjOI+iy MWvll vhW'h •V^ 200 sntn' 13R? (^gf^si^ET) sn^i.^i R;-fi+ OTT3II?CT sb*<i* 's^irar ^iftd sn^i 2- °ni<it<n<<li iiiciT ^f ft^ <Rl*ril< ^affiPTSIT^I, !>".. 7.2. This Hon'ble Court| may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandomus or suitabje direction regarding the investigation the case from other prc 7.3. This Hon'ble Cour^ may kindly be pleased to allow the compensation to secutiwi agencies. he petitioner, against inaction of the prosecutitm agency.| 7.4. Any other relief wl^ich the Hon'bte Court' deems fit and proper . also be granted to 1 the investigflri'ion is going on, st< he petitioner" The respondents have file|d their return in which it is submitted that 'ements of as many as 17 persons have been recorded, however no evidence) has come against any person so far and therefore, action against any indpvidual could not be taken as prayed. On the direction of this ^ourt, progress report dated 27.8.2007 has also been filed wherein it is shc^m that the statement of five more persons hfive been recorded, however, evidence so far to implicote an' still going on. Respondent-Stcri stdtements recorded durina 'mvi Leamed counsel for the| petition has been fited for si they have not been able to collect any \f person as an occused and investigotion is e has also filed documents in the form of .stigation. petitioner submits that the petitioner has raised suspicion against the n^med persons, however, the poiice has not taken any interest to investigi|rt-e the mcrtter and therefore, the instdnt tabte direction to the prosecytion^g^icy -THCFI ^SfV ^SIBBT, <MWIW —FS/59— 8/2007 —30.000. fr. '..:• "a' ^t. 5SSSS •y •yssf ^iow.ii, QThy'16, R(rtiy^< WWIT '*«(<* •H^ 200 snts 'fsv ('{'S-y'ss) aii^i.w K-fi* inraiTOT ^sw 'S^IRR ^ifsg sn^i -?. regarding investigotion of the mi sister namely Saneshiya Bai. who I have heard learned coui atlegoti<m contained in the petitior The mcrtter is still under of the respondents in which recorded. In the mortter of Sakiri V< 2008 Am SCW ^S9 the Hoit maintainability of writ petition non-registf'ation of FER by the thus;- "11. In this connection we a grievunce thot the poli under Section 154, Superintendent of Potice application in writing. Eveif resuh- in the sense that ef thot even after registerinj open to the aggrieved perj 156 (3), Cr.P.C. befofe the| an appticotion under ehl<l^wft'T flM^ff "if fs^ <R>1^,[{ ^i-aiRlH aii^r i(rder cose in relotion to the petitioner's (as murdered on t8.6.2005, ^set for the parties. I have perused the as atso report of the respondent State. i(ivestigation according to The submissions stcrt|ement of 22 witnesses has already bew ^su Vs. State of U.P. & ors reporfed in t'ble Apex Court- whiie considering the uhder Article 226 of the Constitution for p|olice has held in Para-11 of The judgment (woutd tike to stote thot if a person has ]pe st<iti<m is not registeping his FER >.C., then he c<m approach the [under Section 154 (3), Cr.P.C. by an if that does not yield any sotisfcctory rher the FIR is stilt nol- registered, or it no proper investigation is hekl, it is son to file <m cyplication under Section leamed Magistrate concemed. If such 156 (3) is filed before^the^- Cif.P 54ction 7'a-fi'i 'Npr 3i?iiRB(, <]~-i.ii<iii^ —FS/59— 8/2007 —30.000. 'l as'ii;!i; Sifco-L ___________ 3%^ ^|Aii.r»l4,aTftyis, fartiuy MtHWt **<|ch Wi, 200 angsriR^ (^pf^g^) ai^i.wRFrig? WSIKS jew ^ ftoshan/- 's^nWdfct an^i -q Magistrote, the Magistrtrt'^ and aiso can direct a propj where, according to the og^ was made. TTie Magistrat^ monitor the investigart'ion t^ In the considered opinion The offence have already madesi| for The petitioner to assist tt^e perpetrafors of the offence. If investigotion conducted by the file <m application under 5ectio|i Magistrate concemed who, in tu^ made and in case, according to ag{ made, the ttagistrote can a'so] investigotion to ensure the prope( WiTh theaforesaid observfxt'ions '»i<([<n<(l-< fi'K'iT'? ft'zt' <Fa)^l< iTsifinsn^i can direct the FIR to be registered >^r investigotion to be made, in a case og^rieved person, no proper inwstigation •crt-^ can also under the same provision ensure a proper investigotion." |af this Court' the police after registering ihcere efforts towards investigation. It is h|e prosecution agency in identifying The 1'he petitioner is stilt unsatisfied with the prjosecution agency, then it is open to him To 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the leamed ^n, can direct a proper investigotion to be (rieved person, rio proper investigation was under the same prowsions monitor the investigcrt-ion. i, The petition stands^disgosedof._ Sd/- Dhirednra Mishra Judge ®H'&(^ST-T •pnRai, tmRiiig —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000.