HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PetttLoners W. P.NO. 843 of 2002 1. 2. Praveen Kumar Pathak, aged about 32years, S/o. Late Shri Prakash Narayan Pathak R/o. Poisaipara, Durg, P.0. & Distt. Durg (C.G.) Smt. Rukhmani Pathak, aged about 70 yesrs, Wd/b. Late Shri Prakash Narayan Pathak, R/o. Polsaipara, Durg, P.Q. & Distt. Durg (C.G.). Through Power of Attornev petlttoner-1 versus ResRpiidents 2. 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Home Dspartment, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Superiniendent of Police, Durg (C.G.) S.K. Yaa'av, Town Inspector, Poiics Station Kotwali Durg (Oid Bus-stand), Durg (C.G.) Promod Pathak, aged about 35 years, S./o. Late Shri Prakash Narayan Pathak. Smt. Archana Pathak, aged about 32 years, W/o. Promod Paihak, Petitioner No. 4 & 5 now iiiegat occupant of MIG- 125, PadmanabhPur, Durg, P.0. & Distt. Durg (C.G.) Amoi Pathak, aged about 33 years, Practising Advocate at Durg, Bar Room No. 4, District Court, Durg, P.0. & Distt. Durg //^ ,^» ^_ ..l-!.j Khan, aged about 33 years, Practising Advocate at Durg, Bar Room No. 4, District Court, Durg, P.0. & Distt. Durg /^* ?^ \ i^^.) WRiT PETITION UNOiER ARTiCLE 22S OF THE CONSTiTUTION GF jNDiA (SB : Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.j ^.St^^i ^frS-'^'.'t*1 snn b.K. unosn, Advocate ror the petitioners. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Government Advocate for the Respondents No. 1 and 2/State. ORDER (Passed ors this 2Q day of August, 2007) 1. The dispute invoived in the present petition seems to be the dispute with regard to the ancestrai property of the father of the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 4. 2. The allegations made by the petitioners are that the respondent No. 4 has trespassed into the property of the petitioner No.1 and petitioner Isjo. 2 i.e. mother of the petitioner No.^1 and the respondent No. 4. A compiaint under Section 151/107-116 ot' the Code of Criminal Procedure was registered against the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 4 in the Court of the Sub-Divisionai Magistrate, Durg belng Case No. 856/2002. The petitioner and the respondent were discharged from ali the charges. Subsequentiy, the petitioners have fiied a case under section 145 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure against the respondent No. 4. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Durg has atready taken cognizance of the matter and the matter is at the stage of recording evidence of the respondent No. 4. 3. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking foilowing reiiefs: "(i) A direction kindly be issued to tne state respondent-1 to register case against respondent-4 to 7 and aiso againsi respondent-3. (ii) Direction kindiy be given to staie respondent-1 to suspendent and transfer respondent-3 for his deretiction of duty. (iii) Direction kindiy be given to state respondent-1 to conduct impartiai enquiry on the basis of report annexure P/8 and brlng the culprits to book. ?as.: 5. R(- (iv) The state respondent-1 kindiy be directed to restore possession of house MiG-125 in Padmanabhpur Durg. (v) Compensation to the tune as may be deemed justified may kindly be directed to be paid to the petitioner-1 tbr the harassment meted out to him by respondent-3. (iv) Any other relief deemed Justified may atso kindly be ailowed to the petitioner." ^p Since the mater is subjudice and pending consideration before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Durg, it is not proper to interfere with the proceedings. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge t»s