T 5;LA59g§ ‘ ...... A w.p. __Z;)“‘/2ooo Petitionex- z- Mo. Amp. s/o Late smi Hamid Khan Aged 2! years R/O Kasaridhih Durg Chha‘ttiSgarh VERSUS z u- 1. State of M.P. Tmough — Secretarv Home Department (seeariat Raipu}, C3hattisgarh 2. ,Supei’cendant of Police Dis tto Durgv. § ‘ 3. Station Officer P.s. Mohan Nagar Durg .P. Tiwari, 5w; Inspector P.s. Mohan Nagar,-Durg. Lies ponde ngjgg yetition under artice 226 of the constitutional Law of ndi crte r R l :L Ia ‘XI—HC-22 v WW 119‘ WWJIW m C19M/ t .4 Vk/ M‘wy) 1% £i‘ct W ()lfw {wt/k §—.¢~w‘\m‘ca l/WLf/Jbk “Lima COURT OF cmATTIsGARK 8-12-2000 . shri T.K.Tiwar,i , learn é. counsel for the petitioner. shri Ran‘veers ingh‘, l earn-ed ...... £or the saate . Gavt . Audv . The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that, his report o£ cognizab Le 3" offence is not being taken by the concerned‘police r W station and according to hi complainant “s information . no action would be ltaken on @ N his zeport because the d ‘accused is personal friend ? of the Soperintendent. of Police. From the petition and L §a the averments made in it, ii 7.I 4,6,3 l steps as required un er im , drav ec ed l“m .. ._l ‘ it does not appear that the! petitioner has taken g ' mW(W ,‘ )