HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR FirstAopeal No. 29/2005 APPELLANT PLAINTIFF RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Raman lal Maheshwari, S/o Mishri tal Maheshwari, aged-45 years, Occupation- Nothing, R/o Ward No. 13, Nayapara, Bemetara, Police Station & Tahsil-Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) Versys 1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Collector, Durg, District-Durg(C.G.) 2. Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg (C.G.) 3. V.P. Singh, Sub-lnspector (Police), At the time of inciderrt-Police Station- Bemetara, District-Durg (C.G.) Present address-P.S. District-Durg (C.G.) Bhilai-Chhawani, Present: Shri Sudhir Verma, leamed counsel for the appellant. Shri Akhil Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No.1 ORALORDER (Passed on 13" March.2007) The foflowing oral order of the Court was passed by Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J, Heard. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.01.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bemetara, District-Durg in CMI Suit No.3-8/2004 whereby the suit for damages frted by the appellarrt-plaintiff was dismissed, the appellant-plaintiff has preferred this First Appeat. 2. Brief facts are that the appellant-plaintiff <wns Srinath General Store at New Bus Stand, Bemetara. It is alleged that on 10.09.2001 he wras-dispossessed by his brothers from the said general store. On 11.09.2001, the appellant-plaintiff lodged comptaint at the Police Station- Bemetara. Since the police did not file charge sheet, the appellant-plaintiff preferred a private complaint before the Additionat Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara. The appellant-plaintiff alleged that the police did not investigate fte matter and submitted a final report with mala fide intention. On these premises, a suit for awarding daraages of Rs.60,000/- was filed by the appeltant-plaintiff. Learned Additionat District Judge, Bemetara recorded a finding that there was absolutely no material on record to show that the police either with mala fide intention or to harass the appetlant-plaintiff submitted a final report on the first information report lodged by the appellant-plaintiff. 3. Learned counsel for the appeltent submits that besides ttie orai asserUon made by the appellant-plainUff there is no other materiat on record to show Uiat either the potice acted in a mala fide manner or to harass the appellant-plaintiff. 4. Having heard rival conterrtions, 1 have perused the record of Chril Suit no.3-8/2004. The oral assertion of the appellant/plaintiff is wholty rebutted by the testimony of Sub Inspector-V.P. Slngh who stated that in view of the dispute,of a private nature between brothers Dev Kishan and Ramanlal, he had submitted a final report. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Police acted with mala fide intention in filing-a firfal report. In fte absence of proof of mala fide intention on the part of the defendante to harass the appellant-plaintiff, the leamed lower Court righdy dtsmissed the suft. The finding recorded by the teamed lower Court ts thus impeccable. 5. In the r^ult, this appeal being devoid of merit is dlsmissed. No order as to costs. __ ———-- ^' Sd/- ^ S Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukli Judge lyw