•»' y IN THE HIGH COURTOF 3UDICATUERE ATBILASPURTC.G.l W.P.A6.^> ^5y2-/ZOB6 PETmOMER J-lem KumSr Sidar s/0- Sujan Singh aged about 39 years, Occupation- Assisitant Teacher, Government Primary School Kejwa, tahsil- Saraiplai, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS ,1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through the Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) The Superintendent of Pdlice, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) The Additional Superintendent of Police Special Police Thana Sc/St, Head Quarter Mahasamund (C.G.) >>/y. j^e/ \.>xx^y ^w .••" d£;'0V t^2. .^y -<t-y.^ .- ^/ t?>" ^y/ ^ 3. fo^APAR^^ i*(^^^ A'li ^^"'vy.f.gs^/^?/ ^<Ny»^J / ,<^^ ^lll?*' ^^^ The Station House Officer, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ^5. The Sub Divisional Officer of Police, Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 6. The Block Education Officer, ^' Block- Saraiplai, District- Ma'nasamund (C.G.) 7. The District Education Officer, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) •/8. Deenanath Nayak, President Jan Bhagidari Samiti, Kejwa, Tahsil Saraipiai, Distrid- Mahasamund (CG.) fc WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT_OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^r WRIT PETITION (Cr.) No. 4552 of2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Hem Kumar Sidar -^ VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Present: ,Shri F.S.Khare, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy. A.G. with Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 24tn day of September, 2010) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the facts of the instant case issquarely covered by a decision of Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & others and Virender Prasad Singh v. Rajesh Bhardwaj & Others . Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appropriate complaint under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C."j before the Magistrate in light of the above stated decisions. 2. Learned counsel appearing for other side has no objection. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforestated liberty^ ifso advised. -— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 (2008) 2 SCC 40 22010AIRSCW4902