c^^ .IN IHS H23H SGURT.OjP creOieATORE'AT BILASPUR (S.S. ) firife Petitlon NQ.3(X2'2-/2003 PETITZ0NER ; Rvindra efaandel S/o Ran|>ai eliandel, aged^ a3x»ut 55 years, resident of Ram saptah Gl.iowk, Shankar 'Stard, t.t%<-*^n- SS-iatapara, Distt. Raipur'(G.G.).. ^^^•••- Versus - *»»» RBSPONSENTS uw l!i"w s 1. State of Ghhatt'isgarh Through'! Home!Secretary ^- K- J ibKaji-Jio^i Rdj^purf'd^ 2. Saperiatendent ef Poiit&s y. Rai.pur.: - '{>TiM-: ^a-t'puur. -1:;'\ ^.,' l^i^p . 3. Jo Nagash, S.H.Q. Bhatapara;;j{?Jrban^j 4. Krishna Kumat, ^aged'38 yea.rsi f' S/o;ftr(ju.n Lal vsr.ma,· Mandl iRo&^» ''Bhatapara, Dj.stt.; Raigur :(QJ.}3!.;!'.i 5. ; Smt. i3asratri AiaiJ., aged 55 :y^ars 'B/o.Jltendra Adil, resldehti 'Gijf^ ^ Behind uTeevan Lal Hpspltal, Bha-tapara, Distt. RaiplUT .(G:;.^]. );.:i: fiHI Bii! BQ PETITION UNDER &R'r:B3ItE^2S. OS" SONSTCTyTitON. QE iliffil XI-HC-22 sn^i'^1 h'u'* sf^s ^tfl^w?^ T^'sqraRR, •NlH're; rray snif^T ira^ ^,y. ioo. 3o5Z./'^3 ••-^ 2»0 IINCTI aifllifl STK^^aiWTElf^T the ttts contcbted 01/11/2003 Shri HX.Stama,, counsel Shri Rraveen Das, PL for Heard. Petitioner has preferred the Constitution of India ta petitioner is that the petitionei) Gram Panchayat Kukura Chund4 Respondent nho.5 Direotor, Mandi Bhatapara, bu\ election, therefore, she startell respondent no.4 started petitioner in Criminal case witt) Respondents no. 4 and 5 made a written complaint before but no action was taken Respondents no, 4 and 5 sent petitioner. ^t behest of respondj 7.00 p.m., the respondent no,3 and threatened to implicate him i(i and 4 forced the petitioner to |is writ petition under Articie 226 of | hich the main grievance of the is an elected Sarpanch of village threatating conUtued agair^st *i<<(!'i''i"i-) w^vS 4iyS <Rii«$i< ^? 3lfSa*I SRlta 'or the petitioner. State. an election for the post of she could not sucoeed in the blaming the petitioner and the the petitioner to implicate the thc help of the respondcnt no.5. to threat the petitioner. He P.H.O. Bhatapara on 30/06/2002, the rcspondents no. 4 and 5.. several threatening letters to the ^nt no.4, on 23/08/2003 at about Spok the petitioner to Police Station criminal oase. Respondents no. 3 eftecute eheques of Rs.70,000/- on Itl XI-HC-22 3^ •3ipfi?pT, -grgte^, r««iiyy @ t<|t<CTT%W» Bil^t^I r<-li4> an^f attli'b'Hii^ sn^i •reiiwHfea •til^td'Tl") t|W<-ff ^ lyzt <(a|t(l< ^73lPgtI3iI^I different dates and respondents no. 3| sign on Ikramama as per Annexure the same and the said cheques were| who acknowledged the receipt of ch4 no.5. !t is submitted by counsel for tll inoved ooinplaints to Chief Minister, Bhatapara, Collector, Raipur. no.2 is bound to direct the register alleged complaint regarding cognizable ! have heard leamed counsel forl and 4 forced the petitioner to y/5 regarding the payment of ycven to the respondent no.4 4ques in favour of respondent (e petitioner that the petitioner the Seoretaiy Home, S.D.0. (P), Super|ntendent of Rolice respondfait Uie criine in connection with loffences. [the petitioner and the leamed counsel for the State. counbc} Having hcard thc lcamcd |the opinion that there is a provision in| ]under Section 156(3) which lays ^nipowered under Section 190 inay labows mentioned. Therefore, in view |can file complaint before the Magistr^ ;omplaint to P&lice for repstcrillg tlie| [affence as per provisions of Section 15| for the pctitioncr, I ara of the Criminal Procedure Code |dcwn that any Ma^strate o+der such an invcstigation as this prowision, the petitioner ite concemed for sending his case aiid to investigatc into l5|6(3) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, A__. M-HC-22 3<I^?[^I 'R;IW 3IT^T 'a?tiR?:Bttct Ul \ ^^ •^l'illcl'1!, (Wly'l'i, I««II<HI< x WfvW th*il°h 200 as an altemative remedy is availafcjle any substance in this petition. Thej ^l^i'rpft'f HW^ ^ 'fe^ <F>i'^i< ^siPtnsn^t to the petitioner, I do not find same is dismissed. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO