IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHAmSGARH Criminal Misc. Petition No. /2010 PETITIONER -^ Applicant: f Respondents Non-Appllcant o ..^\^ ^ .^\..-":"<y ...€^^» .<»-;^.:^^° *•••' \' ^2 ^ Santosh, S/o Shri Mangal Caste Teli, aged about 26 years, R/o Gram Ghughwa, Post Ouri, Police Station Bhilai-3, Tahsil Patan, District Durg [C.G.] VERSUS State of Chhatdsgarh Through: Secretary for Home Department [Secretariat] D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur [C.G.] Superintendent of Police Durg, District Durg [C.G.] Station House Officer, Police Station Utai, District Durg [C.G.] Yoovraj Singh Bisen, S/o Not Known Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Utai, District Durg [C.G.] Rupram Verraa, S/o Jagdish Verma, aged about 61 years, R/o Ganiyari Post Pahandor, Police Station Utai, District Durg [C.G.] z- 7 Sardar Shabbir Khan, S/o Mohd. Basir Khan, Aged about 40 years, R/o Ghughwa Bhilai -3, Police Station Bhilai 3, District Durg [C.G.] Rajendra, S/o Bhukhan Lal, aged about 39 years, R/o Pahandor, Police Station Utai, District Durg [C.G.] [Respondents No.5 to 7 are accused persons] APPLICATION U/S 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SEEKING DIRECTION BY THIS HON'BLE COURT OF LODGING QF F.I.R. TO THE RESPONDENT N0. 3 & 4 i.e. STATIQN HQUSE OFFICER OF POLICE STATION UTAI AND CONCERNED A.S.I, YUVRAJ SINGH BISEN DISTT. DURG *11*1<AI ^TT^ dwi •^iiwcw, u-S\w\<a, Kmmy »-^;M'.P.-.Ms:...2:.^.4t/2:.o.lO. (^ V^20 3iit?rwR«i cnT3iRn(i»ira' an^srwe ('pfg^s) STOTtRoRd SfS^V 3.8.: HON'BLE JUST'CE n|R. PRiTiMKES OIWAKES OS-Q5-2010: Shri Abhay T'wgr:, coif Shri Pankaj Sh'ivastaj pr-ogapt OQt^tlOH W;ll 246/2010. 284'2010. 239/20t !n Cr.M.P Nos. 264^fcOIO, 289/2010 & 290/2000 thou^h ?ne orayar has &aen maae to r| coi.nsel for fie pettt'oners fcubm!Ts tf'at as tnsre is no orovision "or i"ev:ew In tle Cooe o? CnrT!'rl relief but in the Israar fnterl the respondents to act 'n ac g'so dec:ded 3!ona with the ip a'i these petit'ons, hs'/e f;;sc ssoarate aoo:'d Class, Psta"!, D's^'ict Durgl Cnminal Prccecu'e for r resDoncier's Tor t"ss c"ence 471.^06X)° and 120-B/34 dftle intiisn Penai Code <bllfo4)'< *ll*ldTifls»^l•(luitSK fc 3|K|*1 dlli*l insei "orWe oerrtione's. ! -.^,t/^..^ <„»^.^^ Cl-'-~3-- •a. ^sn^i L5Wv:gr TOF ins Oi.5^. govern the ^ispossi of Cr.M.P. 'Oand29Ct'2010s!so. •ca'j the order dated 932010. however. ^' Procedure. "a is noi orassina t-e same 'st of ^ust'cs, clirection msv be 'ssued to ;ordsnce wth 'sw and tiiese petitions be |sth&r petitions. a'ieysnce of t"e Detrtioners is that tiiev fefions before Judieia! Maaistrate, First unde' Ssct'on 156 (3) af the Code of [gistrgtion of ttie o?tence aga'nst t?*s k uricssr Sect'ons 41 S. 420. ^S7.46Q.^-5Q. i Xl-ti dwl '^wiriy, u-^lwis, Rowyx ^t 1MCTI VffW an^sTqiiR-li* (CTaii^iiitt'ii'B an^?r IRRP (^g^s) W^20 ?^araR?ri8?r3ii^XI -2-- Accoriaing to the pet't) tearned Magistrate on 6.2.1 tnvestiaate the matter but tii! <jcne nor ths C1R. has bse't has a'so 'oeen prayed by th^ lOners, directions 'A'ere issued by the ?0.10 ar,d 5.3.2010 to the poisce to date netther ths investioation has been reaistered agalnst the resDonGents, !t pet'itionsrs m al! the petitions tnat *ne respondents No. 1 & 2 msy bfe drscted for in'tjatina the deDsrtmsritai enqu'ry agalnst the respond Counse! has Tiied an a'ftdavst been spec'ficaiiy den'eci by t?| of time ary bribe g-nount wa^ stated that pr'or to lodging o1 cases, respondents namely Rajendra Mehar fiied an ap] Code of Cr!mi"at Procedu; 1.12.2009. Entertaining the <bl<l(ri41'l *)l*ldl"^ffo'd •(RI'«(I'< ^S aiKll aii^?l :nts No. 3 & 4. in their petitlons, the certa'rs alleaations eaainst the police petitioners have a!so maciel oTicers regarding ciemand of |)ribe for reg;stra{io" of the F.'.R. pursuant to the ciirectl)on aiven by this Court, tearned State (ifthe investiQating offteer in 'fyhicr it has |e investiggting Officar tf-at at any po'rrt demanded by him. It has been further the report bv the petitioners 'n ail the (Roop Ram Verma, 8ana.u Gond and pl'cgtion untier Section 15S (3) of e •^ befere the learned Maaistrate on fe'd apoiicat'on on 4.12.2008 directions XI-H idwi "yiqirtq, ts-^lwia, fslrti'Myx ^ *11*1rtl a?1T^ aii^rwR-ii* niiiiafiii!lfl»*li<p SII^STwv (i?tg6is) W(,20 etfliiax'aIea'atiSfi were issued by the learned subrr'it the t;na! report. it ha^ been contendsd by the State Counsei that based on this d'rection dlf the learned Macsistrate, on 5.12.2009, the F.!.R. «'l/a.s reaistered ao^ and the matter is under snvs! by the State ccunssS that cou! fiied s.ppfcat'oRs undsr Sect'i on 8.2.2010and 26.2.2010 the oniv dirsction which v/as wss to investigste the matter. State counsel submits 8,2.2010 on the comp'aint of| Dularibal and Santosh, inve^t submitted on 23.2.2010 befc was not accepted because not recorded and were not comp'ainants were not trace^ q>i<iru<Tli iiinY^ffetfl •(Rl't^'t ^? dtKl*t OllSiEI Maaistrate to reQister the offence and |inst the petitioners in aH the five cases fetiaation. It has further been contendsd |0 be BS a counter b'ast, petit'oners have 'bn 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Mag'strate a|id while entertaining these applications, Issued to the Station House Officer, Utai that pursuant to the direction issued on Detitioners Oaneshwar Prasad Sharma, inve^tlaat'on was done and the report was the iea'ned Magistrate but the same t!|ie statements ot' the compieinants were |attached with ths report. tt has been '. submitted that these statem4"ts could not be recorded because the bte. State counse! submits that this fact Xl-f a ^ ywi '«iqirt«,t»-a1wifi,Rlril'dy't 11*101 ?SW SII^ST IRR? (lyijd^) W^20 W^t}W R'11* aaiTan^Tdiii* S^IT8R^ll6ad|l^!!l -4- was also mentioned in the] bearing No. 997/2010. He sut] these three compiainants <\ Duiaribai and Santosh are ( submitted before the Compet^ petitioners namety Ashwani K^ it has been arqued by the St was issued bv the Magistrate 8.3.2010 and 1.5.2010, the eftl of these petitioners but as th|i could not be recorded an<i investigated. Looking to this, d to these petit'oners under S Procedure, to be served throu they are not tuming up and W these petitioners are not in to niay be issued to them direct!' on the basis of complasnt WKlfCT'fll IIICTl'ffa'^l '(lultSlt ^ aiKl*t dflS'il Rojnamcha Ssnha dated 23.3.2010 mte that as soon as the stgtements of lamely Daneshwar Prasad Sharma, eccrded, the report would be again nt Court. !n respect of the comp'.aint of imar Dadhsena arid Msmta Dadhsena, ate counsel that on 5.3.2010 d'rection to investiaate the matter. In between 3rts were made to record the statement sy are not traceab!e, the'r statements the matter couid not be further n 7.4.2010 summons were also issued ection 160 of the Code of Criminal gh their loca! advoc-ates but even then 3 concerned Advoca.te has replied that jch with him and, therefore, tha same ?. State counsei Turther submrts thst as bf Roop Ram Verma, Banau Gond <^,iiy~~»^>ti p' s, 1 "\ F &"% .1 XI-HCi-78JS' ^/ "'-^3ES@f^ <dwi ^tiwicw, y-^WId, Rttittyc 11*101 SffW 311^195TR-< ditl ail^STtbli* 3n^9T iraq? (*yf^<si<ri) ^20 s'rarw^iferan^r and Rajendra Mehar, case| petitioners, they are avoidingl be because of their poiice. However, unless t^i authorities and submit ai! the| apprehetsio" the pollce to submit the compliance of the order date^i 1 have heard counsel avai'able on record. I find no force in the ^ directions isissued by the P( the poiice is bound to regisi} investigation can be done. In the case m hand, tft pp learned Magistrate to the pursuant to that, sincere investiaate the mattsr. If thel they are oblige to follow lega <Bi<ifn<I1i iiinV*>" fe>d tluttsit <l?<>iKltaiiS<i has been registered against aii the |thelr appearance before the Police, may |isio" that thev might be arrested by the |e petitioners come before, tne poiice documents before them, it is difficuSt for report before learned .Magsstrate in i 8.2.2010and 5.3.2010. For the parties and psrused tne materiel rgument of the petitioners thst once the lacistrate to investi^ate the matter then er the offence and without the same no e on!y direction which wss given by the )!ice was to investigate the matter and have been made by the police to petitioners are interested to get just'ce, procedure, it is now for the Detit'oners to efTorts fv%, S^. ? 1 xNie-ya vjwi '-tii<<itto, w^lwia, Rowy *ll*ic9l ?RW SII^STW R'ii* ?raT3iAsT»qra; 311^51V ('j^fg^) V^20 S^ITSRflfiaaii^T co-operate with the poiice. relevant documents before themsetves for recordina th ter. pottee to investigate the ma^ Under Section 156(^ tearned Magistrate is fully ji( investigation of the matter police authorities to imjnediately investigation the police been committed by any o1] under the law wou'd follow. | corne P) of the Code of Crimlns' Procedure, (stified in issuina direction to the police for bnd it is not incumbent bn trte part of the register the F.1.R. tf after to the conclusion thst the offence has At this stage, it has | that the petstioners are wi! will make themselves av^ would atso produce all t^ petitioners will present V 15 days from the receipt o1] reievant documents. cni<ilo<11i nmmfV^Q•(Rl'^l'l ^aiKlloil^l If the' petitioners do not produce all the |:he po'ice authorities and wlll not present eir statements, it would be diffteu!t for the the respondents, the action gs required |been argued on behslf of the petitioners !l|ig to co-operate in the investigation, they iiabla before the police authoritles and te relevant documents. He submits that herliselves before the po!ice authoritles within copy of this order and wi!! produce al! the 1 y • / {?.. • ff '^s' ss !1''/.. - 1 s ^ XI^C-78 .:v / tdwi "tii«irt<i,i>Ti1<«<is,Rni'Hgx tffPTBT apTT^ 3li^?rvla ('ipfgi's) ^20 aii^iwiR'ii* w aili?T**<i* D/- s^iTWHfei 3n^?r -.7- uii Be that as it may, it is u!t> they want to co-operate in the| appear before the Investigatiit recorded and investigating accordance with iaw. to petltjoners to cecide as to whether investigation or not. !f the petitioners |ig Offlcer, their statements wouid be officer wil! proceed v/ith the case in With the above observat|ons, the petitions stand dlsposed of. <pi*if«o<II'i<ii*inT^t" ls'3 '(luitsn <S aiKl*) SII^iT Sd/- , Pritinker Diwaker Judge