BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITIONtCzmo. [é /2ooa WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/Q%—% OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS / CERTIORARI / PROHIBITION ETC. IN FORM OF ORDER / ORDERS, WRIT / WRITIS). DIRECTION / DIRECTIONIS) ETC. RESPONDENTS /1. State of Chhattisgarh, through — the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. The Superintendent of Police, Dist Surguja (Chhattisgarh) x 3. The Station Officer Police ‘Station Shanakargarh Dist: I Surguja (Chhattisgarh) O 1 PARTICULARS ABOUT THE PETITIONER As per cause title of the petition. I PETITIONER 1. ha Dr. Ajmer Singh /{ Kush'awakion r‘ ‘9‘ oiLShri Kewali Singh Kushawa , ) J 00 aged about 36 years r/o Vill. IWI éziuis? Pasta Dist: Surguja C.G. Commissioner cum Project I ldminisfm’ror, Triba! Dephrfmenf, Ambikapur lodgad a repor’r mahing allegafions ugninsf 1‘he pefi’rionzr five Officer, Janpacl Panchaya'r ry conduc‘red by The S.D.O., Kusmi, rted a sum of Rs.51,72,500/-. as fhe i *io M/s Rainbow Dealers, Ambikapur , as The period of work was 2004~O5 ”r0 The Then Chief Execu‘ Shankargarh Tha‘r as per enqu Tha pe‘ti’rioner has misapproprii afcresaid amour}? has bean paiJ wi‘ihouf compie‘i’ion of The'wori‘ ko 2005-06. Learned counsei for fhe pefi‘rioner submifs fhaT from perusal of fhe firsT informafion reporf i'r would be evidenf Thaf no offence uhder Seci‘ion 420 of ‘i’he I.P.C. is made ou‘i’ againsf The pe‘l'i'fioner, as There is no aliega‘fion of chm-ring or fraud‘ He fur‘fher submi‘fs 71210. XI—HC-78 @ MW, Wm,W Wm .r:fi@.r2:v.x.4§/.e.a m: 200 WW(W) E1 1 2.200? Shr‘i T.K. Tiwari, Advocafi‘z for The pefi‘l'ioner. Shri Vinay Hqrif, Dy. Adv‘oca’fe General for ‘l’he S‘fa‘fe. Heard. This The has prayed for quashmenf of By pe‘rifion pa‘ri‘l’ioner- Firs’r Information Report 0‘: Annexure P~5 da‘l’ed 9.52006 regis‘rared under Secfion 420 of ‘rhe Endicm Perm Code by rasponden? No.3. The grievange‘ of The pefi‘rioner is fhaf The Assismm ConsequenTly, MTWP. NOTE 46/07 also sTands disposed of Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O. XI—HC-78 3EFamm¥L§Wm¥@y%Emm£ 'Wm . o. ........... o ..... o o . a 200 WWW WW<WX WW§WW WWW EEmWu%aa m ’ Z“ éswanéw ‘w k.) ‘fhaf fhe Assistan‘r Engineer, PUMic Heahh Engineering, Sub Division has Kusrni submif‘ied a repor‘f of Annexure P-4 and from perusal of which if would be evidem‘ ‘iha‘r “he work againsf which “the paymen? is made, has already been complei‘ed‘ He furl'her refers To a cer'lifica’re issued by The Sarpanch, Gram Panchaya": Manoharpur wherein he has cerfified fhaw‘ The bore has been drilled successfully in fhe year 2004435 6i 2005—06. I have heard learned counsel for The peTiTioner. Peruse! of firsT informa‘vion reporT reveals ThaT There are allegaTions cf misappropriaTion cf fund and defalcaTion on The basis of which reporT has been lodged. The invesTigaTion is sTill going on and The charge shee'l' is yeT To be filed, Therefore, The defence of The peTiTioner cannoT be considered aT This sTage. However, i? is open To The peTiTioner To raise T'iis objecTion before The compeTenT criminal courT afTer filing of charge sheeT. WiTh The above observaTions, The peTiTion sTands disposed of.