'fa lN THE HIGH COUF]T 0F SIKKIM OF3DEF] SHEET Yrti Petit,ion (Cr±.ng.p3.I).......... No.1 of 2oo 5 Bhuwan Pradhan & 2 Others Versus State of Sikkim & Others Petitionerd Appellant Pep.. Respondent a ;:`!`..`;.I.i • Order Order with Signature Office Note as to action (if any) taken on Order I. 0..07.ZOO Upon hearing Mr. A. Moulik, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. G. Sherpa and Miss Kesang Diki Bhutia, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. P. Wangdi, learned Advocate General assisted by MI.. J. 8. Pradhan, learned Government Advocate and Mr. Karma Thinlay, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State - respondents, we are of the view that this matter can be disposed of at this stage considering the nature of the case, and, accordingly, the same is disposed of with the following order :- According to the petitioner.s, the petitioner No.1 initially lodged an Ezahar to the Officer-in- Charge, Tadong Outpost, Gangtok on 20.6.2005, but instead of investigating the matter, the petitioners were assaulted by the police and also by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 without assigning any reason. Being dissatisfied with the action of the officer Incharge concerned, they filed another ial Date Order with SignatuFe Office No.{,tas to of of action (if any) ler Order I :. ` taken on Order rcomplaint to. the 'Superin`tendeht »of P6iice concerne \^Li;-.:-,.,.,:,,i;:c: --I,: `: ... =L o on 24.6.2005, a copy of which finds its place a Annexure P-10-appended to the writ petition which i self~explanatory. This fact is not disputed by th petitioners in their writ petition as seen in th statement contained in paragraphs 34 and 35 of it At the hearing, Mr. S. P. Wangdi, learned Advocat General contended that the Superintendent of Polic is conducting an enquiry into the matter, and he i likely to give his finding and decision in the matte according to law very soon. Supporting hi statement, the learned Advocate General ha produced the related file containing the original cop of the FIR submitted by the petitioners, namely Bhuwan Pradhan, Cicil Rai and Lhendup Clyamts Bhutia. It is also contended by the learned Advocat General that there is no allegation in the sai complaint as against the respondent No.4, Shri Sisi Chettri. Learned Advocate General further submit - ) - a I . L <ts( that the present Superintendent of Police is on leav at the moment and, as such, the matter has bee assigned to the Additional Superintendent of Polic in concerned by the DIG to make an enquiry/to th y 1-spatter. We have perused the related file produced by I •..` . :..` J{.i< ' I Order with Signature the learned Advocate General and there are materials on record to establish the factum of r,. existence the FIR and assignment of the duties upon ^v the Additional Superintendent of Police, East Sikkim by DIG on 25.6.2005. According to us, the concerned authority is examining the matter. After proper application of our mind in this matter, and considering the nature of the case, pros and cons, we are of the view that this Court is not supposed to sit as an appellate authority at this stage when the competent authority is discharging their lawful duties conferred upon them by law under Section 154 Cr.P.C. in the matter. In view of the above position, we hold that this writ petition is premature arid, accordingly, it is dismissed, but, no order as to costs. /jv. Chic Justice HHEEE Judge Office Note as to action (if any) taken on Order