s^ •j-ov sx^noo do j^iwaiNoo 3HJL d0 ST NOI103S HJ,IM OVaH ViaNI flO NOUnAULSNO'O •3HJ. dO STS ^^5IJ^V aaONn NOIAIASd J^II'iaj.NOO- •tr.reSsca'eqqo '.Tndre^ 'J3}JBn£)pBSH 83t;0d 'SOTIOd JO ^BJSUSg jppsjiQ '^quig uBCiiejSAqsT^ ui[g •g •qjBgisru^qqo 'jndrea €ireAveqg-g-3['a'iusuri-redsa SUIOH (sjoums^uooj 'Are:aj33g'i^ASO-3['N uqg "[ s}U9puoayaj sns;i5A. <-y^ y •qjBSsin'eq'qo : ,^/ ••.^/- .^°' • 'jnds'B^Q 'F^idsoH A-reaua^syY ..fBSM ' \\/ /S^/ ,'\^~ 'T[3§Un]/tU0p'e}g 301[1[0r[ "BJtldurBJBL[a \/ /~~r/. \S^ ^so^ "ej%(iuip'B^ ^g'e'^TA jo tuapTSaj / /\/ 'sjgsX gg tnoq-s psSB 'ajBfiTBg FBIFTnt:[a ',' ^ /-'/' uqg 33^ jo uos 'sreftTeQ SBQ WB^^/ '^NOIXIlSd (•}jnoo qSiH SICL""HA 600S/09^;ON (SO) uoppsd IUA\. m pssssd QT' T T '8T P^fep JSBJG jo ^no gmsuv) ^" •- v i ^T T05/' i OZ °"N l-tS-J SSBQ idmsiuoo ^l·^.l^ 8|BU19 tHHVOSIJJ.VHHOJ snasvTia j,v HHVOSIAXVHHO jio j^noo HOIH SHA m ^ i 'SS:^.:S1 !-S an^i^ f^-fi'b ^ST^qF (Ptl dfl^I St>*11<^> HIWII si>*<ra» 3'si '^I<IIM<I, y-dlyito, [sioiyy ...(:..^..i^.....C^..fcJ...2^/./J 200 3n^?i 'viv ('pl^yt) TOiiw^ffigan^r SB : Hon'bIeSIu'i Manindra Mlohan Shrivastava, J. 20.10.2011 Shri O.P. Sahu, coui^el Shri Kishore Bhaduri, fk coii.nsel In com.pUance of the ordej an additional affidavit has Director General of Police, reportdated 27.9.2010 receive^ Leamed counsel for res^ fhe direction issued by fhis and report dated 27.9.2011 deceased- Raniesh Das died does not iadicate commission warranting mitiation ofprosectftion. Leamed counsel for fhie Court had directed fhe Directttr incident with regard to deathj special m.vesti.gating agency, Department and take any, of the culprits in earUest, preferably wifhiu a p^i belatedly conducted and fherel wifh. the.order offhe Coiut. appropipate accordat.ee <n!<ii<"i<(1i TTrq^ff ^f fe^ <FnK.« '^sifwi sil^i the petitioner. for respondent No.2. passed by fhis Court on 22.9.2011, filed by respondent No.2, fhe fhen of Chhattisgarh, alon^; witti fhe infhe Police Headquarters. No.2 submitted fhat as per an mquiry was got conducted (A^uiexure R-l) does not show fhat the to any criminal act and the report |of any offence by any of (he person beefi Stite es^ondent Cbiirt, dile petitioner submits fhat though the General of PoUce to get the entire of Raniesh Das, investigated by a may be the Crime Investigation steps to iaitiate prosecution, if with fhe provisions of law, at fhe riod of four weeks, fhe inquiry was is lack of promptitude in complymg WW^T ^hftT ^SCIIfWf, -FS/140—2/20']—1,50,000. !.;ifSKSSIa^iS-^.. ~, ^l^l^ .^ ^3 ^ ^-sss "XI-HC—78 sii^r^T'fTiraT (WT ^llt^T sh+ijtft ^sr ';3IT!TRTO, '®^t?FIS,f°l<?||^^< *ii*i<»ii a>iffq» TI^200 •SII^T'T^T ('yI'l'l'ilEI) '^iiwgfOTsn^r ^— On the ofher hand, referring to averments m.ad< respondent No.2 had no uiter| fhe niatter was inquired iato report has also been received) who has not stated any ps itutiation of aay inqzury. The order was passed Ramesh Das, investigated byi ftie Crime Investigatmg D^ respondent No.2, it has bee^ mquiry was sent to the) CM<i[ci<n'i 'qRoif '£ffsT^t Tf^R^K ^aiRnaii^r .^amed counsel for respondent No.2, in. the afBdavit, has stated fhat the Ition to flout the order of the Court and |as per the directions of the Court and on 27.9.2011 from fhe Inqiury Officer ^"ticular person as culprit warranting |by the Court on 18.11.2010 du-ectmg respondent No.2 to get tiae ejntire incident wifh regard to death of a special investigatmg agency, may be partment. In the affidavit filed by stated fhat fhe information regarding Secretary, Department of Home, Superintendent of Central Jfail, Raipur and CoUector-cum-District iffice of fhe Advocate General and no Magistrate, Raipur by the 41 direct information to the ofEf.ee of Director General of Police, PHQ, Raipur was sent froni fhe ^dvocate General Office. The petitioner has placed on record his repjresentation said to be submitted before .fhe Secretary ofthe concern^d Departaient and the Director General ^ 7th January, 2011 along with fhe of PoUce which bears dat acknowledgnient of receipt 7.2.2011 in fhe office ofDirel of registered post showing receipt on ;tor General of Police. The Court alwavs expecte. proinpt slctioil.;. aiid—cuutpU.cUice—offhc Court's order. •^C;:.,^I-HC-78 n sf^sw h-fi^ '(TSTT 3]T^T snHicfi PraveeG '3"^' •^MK'1'4, •Ei)ill««l<o,fs<<^liy^< ^-(^..........^.1.. Mr*RlT a»*iicb •-'"""""""""" """""""-"-^ 200 sn^r 'v^v (icif^'si<^[i) Considering the submission and that the petttioner's repre in. the office of fhe Director the matter was directed td 4.8.2011, pursuant to whic] submitted on 27.9.2011, in said to be a case of wilUul (j No.2. weeks, would arise only in investigation, iadicating an^ prosecution. The report has now b^ feels aggrieved and not satisfli fhe petitioner to take recour^ ^if<<^<ih •qi*ifii^ r^i<rt <r<'i'^R ^atfirasn^r |inade on affidavit by respondent No.2 tsentation is said to have been received Ceneral ofPolice on 7.2.2011 and that be inquired mto vide letter dated }i, iaquuy was made and report was pie opinion of fhis Court, it cannot be (pisobedience at fhe end of respondent The requirement of irjitiatmg prosecution, if any, within 4 fhe event of an adverse report upon person to be culprit warrantmg Ns ;en subniitted. In case, the petitioner sd with the report, it would be open for .e to such remedy as may be available to him under the law. Accordingly, I aiu nojt inclined to proceed furtfaer in the niatter. The rule is therefore disposed of. discharge and the petition is finally ? Sd/- . Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge