/^,\<^^ <^y" .5,^??" * SinglgBeich ^-^" ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIIASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION. NO'7 ' ' t)F 2005 BETWBEN 3 Nirmala Thawait W/o Shri Rameshwar Thawait, aged about 37 years, Resident of Village Khokhra Bhatapara, P.S. Janjgir^District Janjgir Champa (CG). PETmONER AND ^ ^;-.- ^,v »' l^The State of Chhattisgarh, ^ Through the Secretary Department of Home Affairs, Maatralay, D.K.S. Building, Building, Raipur (C.G.) g. The Director General ofPolice, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). : The Collector, Janjgir, Tahsil and District Janjgir Champa (CG). 4^ Superintendent ofPolice, Janjgir , Tahsil and District Janjgir Champa (CG). 5. The Station House Offlcer, Police Station Janj'gir , District Janjgir Champa (CG). 6. Shri B.P. Singh, Investigating Officer ,(Sub Inspector) / Police Station Janjgir , District Janjgir Champa (CG). RESPQNDENTS IT pETinONUNDER ARTICLE 226^227_OF CONSTITUT!ON_OFINDIA ^ ^3'wT <-<4iqioq, tPtTl^^Ktf, [ISlrtK-l^ . -.. l^;-t. /. ^\p.\ . Ji.l^^iJ^^^. 3IT^9Tq=ra?(<^|i^6|<g) 27 W[^w ^^T^f^TN? nsiT3TT^^Trf)*li<b f' B^irsn^rfgpr an^^T 18.11.2005 Shri Shaiiendra Dubey, c' Shri Sandeep Dubey, GJ Heard on admission. •The petitioner has. prefei the Constitution with a prayer t the respondents No»1 to 4 to ini and to further command to c< husband of the petitioner is fa< NDPS Act for aiiegediy found ii his custody. The further pray proceedlngs pending against NDPS Act may kindiy be declan The grievance of the pe|itioner petitioner was arrested on 18/0{ by the respondent :No. 5 & 6 e\ 20kgs. ofganja, the chargesh^ Learned counsel for the petitioner was taken into custo^ was seized from his custody o^ basis of faise recoveryon 19/0^, He submits that the petitioner General of Po'iice vide docum4i^ General of Police vide documet cpi<<[c>)<n^ *iMe5T^f'I^^£lxf^tK-$l<< ^3lf^T3H^?T 'unsei for the p.etitioner. . forthe State. red this petition under Articie 226/227 of ^ JSSUQ a writ of mandamys commanding tiate actions against respondent No.5 &6 |nduct fair and impartiai enquiry as the |ing prosecution under -Section 20 of the possession of 20.kgs, of cannab.is from /^r of the petitioner is that the criminal t|he husband of the petitioner under the ^d nul! and void. is that though the husband of the 5/2005 and was taken to the poiice station ren then cn the basis offaise recovepy of et v^sfiled against him. )etitioner submits that the husba.nd of the ly on 18/06/2005 by the police as nothing that date. Howsver, subsequentiy on the /2005 he has been impiicated m'the case. 4omplained about the same to the Director ^nt of Annexure P-1 and to the inspector }t ofAnnexure P-2 even then investigation SP/FS/2005-20,000 *11<1cnm»TTq? \3wc-qiqic)q,y-^1^<|<i, RlriW^ .......y>..B.^;..^'3jj,/,<J>7 28 OT^^T^R^icb nw3Ti^?Ta5'wp c. s'^^^. 7>- w:^?oo^ 3H^9T (WP (^fg^f) ?^T<n^rf^T3n^$T is being done bythe same offi^ petitioner in the above case. I have heard learned coi Except the two letters O the petitioner to the D.G.P. & substantiate the- contention o1 petitioner has. been falsely impl the petitioner admits that'the petitioner has already been fih is going on before the Spedai is-called for by this Court in e> ofthe Constitution of Jndia as for such interference and ac^ motion stage. In view-.ofth.e above, l.A|, <pi<4[w<n^i <iiw>T^'fe^ ^Ri^i^ ^3rf^*T3n^?T |er 'vvho has impiicated the husband ofthe |nsei forthe petitioner. ^nnexure P-1 & Pw>2) purpo.rtedly.written'by I.G. P. there is no 'document on record-to the petitloner that the husband of the lcated.in this offence. Since the counse! for |charge sheet against the. husband of the. •|d in the month of august 2005 and the triai ;ourt 1 do not considerthat any interfsrence (ercise of jurisdiction underArticie -226/227 |he petitioner has failed to make out a case ^ordingly the petjtion is dismissed at the No. 8508/2005 stands disposed of. . Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra 1 Judge SP/FS/2005-20,000 v' \; ^