HIGH COUR.T OP CHH&TTI8GARH AT BILASPUR W.P.ICI MO. 7486/2007 PE'nTIQNER/ APPLICANT "s^ RESPONDENT8/ BtOS-APPUCAKTS Versus 1. 2. 3. Smt Rita Tiwari, aged about 61 years, W/o. Dr. Harsh Vardhaa Tiwari, Ex-Chainaaa, Indira Pniradarsmi Mahfla Nagrik Sahkari Bank Maiyadit, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (CG), R/o. Gyaa Parisar, P.0. Ravishankar Uniwersity Campus, Raipur (CG) State of Chliattisgarh, through ; S.H.O. PoKce Statton KotwaH, Raipur (CG) S.S.P. -S.P. Office, Raipiir (CG) Registrar, Co-operative Society of Chhattisgarh, TeHbaadha Road, Raipur (CO) C.E.O. C.L.Thakur, Prfyadarshani MaTifla Sahkari Bank Maiyadit, Bazar, Raipiir (CG) Indira. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE; 226/227 OP THB co«fsnTinoNoy miDA ISB: HouT)le Mr. Satlslt K. AanU»ote»iJ,l Shri A.Paadey, couasel for the petitioner. Shri Suinesh Bajaj, Govercunent Advocate for the State. ^- (Passed oa tiiis l7ta day of December 2007) 1. Leamed couasel appearing tbr fhe petitioner subxnits fhat {he poUce Iias registered Crime Nos. 167/06 and 07/07 at Police Statioa KotwaB, Raipur against the petitioaer Ibr fhe offaice punishable under Sections 406,467,109,114,408,409,420,468 aad 12 B ofthe IPC. 2. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioncr subaaits that the petitioner was a CIiairman of Indira Priyadarshmi Mahila Nagnk Sahlcari Eiank Maryadit, Sadar Bazar, Raipiir. She was responaible Ibr taking policy decisions alone, not for execution of fhe work -2 including grant of loaa to the parties. He further aubuiits ftiat fhe petitiouer has been. talsely itnplicated iii fhe crixainal offences as abovestated. '^.. -^. 3. Leanied counsel tbr th.e pctitioner subinits that action of the police is vlolati.ve of Article 14, 20 and 21 of thte ConstitutiDn of India. Leai-ned couasel Izirther subinits that a pollce case has been rcgistered and iavestigation tias been initiated against the petitioner but uo further progress had taken place agaiaat auy ofher persons, wlio niay be tfae real culprits and wliy the petitioner be arrcsted before tlie coiulpletion of enquity. HonUe Supreine Court, recenfty ia ffae matter of .Safctri Vasu Vs. State of V.P. an& fSthers Crimmal Appeal No. 1685 of 2007, decided on 7th December 2007, whereiu, the petitioner sought for iavest^ation of the niatter by the Central Bureau of Investigation (ui short 'CBl'), has cousMered all the lacts with regard to non registration of First Information Report by th.e police and no proper iavestigation by the police autfaorities, The Supreuie Court observed as iinder : ll.......'!We wouSd like to state thal if a person }ws a giievanoe ttuxt the poiice station is noi Tegislering fws FK under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., then he oan appronch the Superintertdent of Polioe under Sedion 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in wrii.injg. Even iftlw.t does not yieid any scctisfactory result in the sense ihat either ttze F is still not registered, or that even afler regisiering it no proper invesiigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person tofile ari applioalion uruler Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the leamed Magistrate concerried. If sucft an applicafion under Secfaon 1S6 (3) is fSed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct ttte F1R to be registered cmd also cccn direef a proper irwestigation to be made, in a case where, aowreting to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was ma.de. The Magtstraie can afeo icwfer the scane provision nwTutor the irwestigcdion to ensure a proper irwestigation.' —— 7 .- ':.•--... .p—., } ^.. ^y'./ •3- •^3, 25. Section 156(3) pravides for a check by the SSagistrate on ihe police perforrmng its duties under Chapter XB Cr.P.C. In cases where the SSdgistrate finds that the police has not done i'(s ctuty of investigating the oase u( atl, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can. issu® a. direction to the polioe to do the investigation pmperly, and canmonitor the sume. 17. In our opinion Section 1S6(3) Cr.P.C. fs ivide enough to indude all sudipawers in a Magistrate which ctre necessaryfor ensurin.g a proper investigatiori, cavi it incfcuies the power to order regiatrafion ofan F.I.R. and qf ordermg a proper inveatigcction if the Magisto-ate is satisfied thaf a proper investigtdion has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Sedion 1S6 (3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wi'cte and it will indude all sucfa inddacfdl powers as ure neoeasaryfor ensuring aproperinvestigation." t-^ ^7 ^- 4. The subinissioa of leamed couusel for tfae petitioner that the registration of a criumial casc aad investigation thcreof is violative of Ardcles 14, 20 aad 21 offhe Constitution ofladia, is frivotous. Article 14 provides for r^h.t to equafity before law, Arttele 20 provides tbr right to protection m. respect of conviction fcr oifeuces aad Article 21 provides tbr r^ht to protection of life aud pcrsonal Uberty. Bare readnig of the above stated provisions, it appears that there is no iniiiageaient of any of the rights as abovestated (supra) to entertain. this petition or to iateriisre wifh the investigation conducted by the poBce. Mere settsauie stateiuent to Uie effect tliat ftie fundamental rights of ttie petitioner have been uifemged, wltfaout tb.ere beiug any inaterial to support the contention, is not siifiicient to mvoke tltie extraordiuaiy jurisdiction of this Court, Learned counsel Ibr the petitioner has failed to estabMsfa that the petitiouer has been denied aaywhere, i-ight to equality of tegal provision, right to protection of tite and personal liberty, except accordiag to fhe procedure estabUshed by law. 5. In view ot' the foregoing, the investigation cannot be stayed by thls court. Il'the petitioner is not satisfied wifh fhe iavestigatk>n or feels /""!.«.'l 1 f'- ""..,. ^// ^- Buguna ^-!. that she bas beea wrongty implicated as accused, she is at Mberty to take recoiirse to fb.e tegal provisioas, as available under the provisions oflaw. 6. The petition is accordxagty, disiaffised With ttie above stated Ilberty. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge >^ ~^-: \J ^