^ <£}" \^ PBTITIONBR mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPOR Cr. M.P. No. 343 OF 2009 SunU Sahu, son of Shri Motilal Sahu, aged about 39 years R/o 29/10, Nehru Nagar (West), P.S. Supela, District Dm^ RBPONDBirr& Vs. 1. 2. 3. 4. State of C.G., fhrough the Station House OjQicer, Police Station Supela. The Superintendent of PoUce, District Durg. The 1.0. Police Station Supela, District Durg. Arpita Sarkar, wife of St^i Aaniav Sarkar, aged 25 years, fhrough her power of attomey holder Shri Amrik Singh, son of Late Avtar Siagh, resident of 14/06, Mofilal Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (CG). PBTITION UNDBR SBCTION 482 OF THB CODB OF CRIMINAL PROCBDURE. 1973. {WS :H&n*bIe Mr. T.P.8harma> J.) Present:- Shri Dinesh R.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Akhil Mishra, Dy. GA. for theState/respondents No. 1 to 3. ORAL- ORDBR (Passedon 7/7/2009) 1. By fhis petitton petitioner has prayed for quashment of the investigation m crime N0. 248/09 registercd at police Station Supela, District Dui^ under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, & 120B ofthe Indian Penal Code. 2. Shri Diaesh R.K, Tiwan, Advocate for tiie pedtioner and Shri Akhil Mishra, Dy, G,A. for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3 are heard. 3o At the out set respondents N0. 2 & 3 are neiffaer necessary party nor proper party. Petitioner has directed to delete fhieir name, 4. Learaed counsel for fhe petitiouer submits that at titie iiistaace of respondent N0. 4 fhe First Information Report has beeii registered agaiast fhe petitioner aad investigation is ia progress on ftiebasis of illegal First Infonnation Report does not constitiite aiiy offence agaiast the petitioner fherefore ftie mvestigation on the basis of such report m crime N0. 248/09 be quashed. gnaNa^BniHSaaagiE^^~~~ ;^^^^:' 5. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner placed reUaace in the matter of State of Harvana and others, AopeUants v. Ch. Bhatan Lal and others* Respondeats1 ia which apex Coiut has issued fhe gziidelines for exercisiag fhe inherent jurisdiction in terms of Section 482 of fhe Code Of Cnminal Procedure, 1973 ( ia short fhe code) and held fhat for iavestigation of fhe erime police Offieer should have rcason to suspect commission of cogmzable offence and he has to sufficiently satisfy hioisetf as to existence of sufficient ground for entenng on mvestigation. 6. Leamed cozinsel for fhe petitioner fiirther placed reliaiice in fhe matter of Maapi SharmaA AopeUant v« State & Ors. --ResffOttdeiit^1 ia which it has held whefher fhe continuaiice of criminal proceedmg would be a fuitUity and tf it is ft>und fhat cnminal proceeding would be a futtlity then quashiag of fhe First Information Report should not be rcfused, 7. On fhe ofher haad, leamed counsel for the State/respondents N0. 1 to 3 opposed fhe petition aad submits that prosecution has notccmcluded tfae iavestigation. The mvestigation is aa progress and prosecution sfaould not be debarred fix>m mvestigation and exercismg its power usfcder fhie Code ofCrimmal Pnwedurc, 1973. 8. At fhe iastaace of respondent N0, 4 fhe poUee has registered the First Information Report for which the poMce is competent to register fhe First Information Report under Section 154 offhe Code aad to investigate ffae crime ia accordance wifh the Chapter- XII of fhe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, First Information Report reveals that commissioii of cognizance offence and on fhe basis of such First information Report mvesti^ation is initiated, Investigation agency has not concluded its iavestigation, Invest^ation Agency has not committed any iUegaUty by iaitiatmg iavestigation on fhe basis of report disclosiaag commission of cognizance ofiFence, I do not find aay ground for mterference at this stage, Consequently, fhis petitiou is liable to be disinissed aad it is hereby dismissed, 9. AU iateriin applications are also disposed of. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge 1_1992CRI.L.J.527 2 2009 (1) SBR 52 n-