IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CHHATTfS^ARH "^r^^-~h^3l]\ W.P. ^ No. /2011 StngteBench PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ,\'^.-\^ ^^' v^" ...••••"" ^s^^^^' 6:»-° Versus ir 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8, Rita Kujyr D/o Late Shri Dhansay Kujur, aged about 24years, R/o Behind ITI colony Nehru Ward 21, Satipara, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Collector, District Korea (C.G.) Divisional Forest Officer, Manedragarh, District Korea (C.G.) Superintendent of Police, District Korea (C.G.) Station House Officer, Police Station Manedragarh, District Korea (C.G.) Shrinivas Patel, aged about 40 year, Messenger, In Forest Department Tendupatta Branch, Manedragarh, District Korea (C.G.) Kiran Patel W/o Shrinivas Patel, Assistant Grade-2, in Nagar Palika Parishad Manedragarh, District Korea (C.G.) Deepak Patel, M.L.A., Manedragarh, District Korea (C.G.) ^ Cz^ 9. Dharmendra Patava, President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Manedragarh, District Korea (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA /'/-s-v~\ ^ HIGH COURT_QFCHHATTjSGARJj : B^ILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cr.) N0.4653 OF 2011 PETITIONER Rita Kujur RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Ms. Anju Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Adv. General for the State. ORDER_(0_RAL1 (Passed on this 23rd day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent Forest Department to initiate departmental enquiry proceedings against the respondent No.6, further to direct the respohdent Police Department to take action against the respondents No.7 to 9 including the CBI enquiry and to quash the suicidal case pending against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner working in the Department of Forest as Assistant Grade III, was posted at Manedragarh. The respondent No.6 was also working in the said department and he used to harass the petitioner and also pressurized her to have illicit relationship with him. The respondent No.6 and hjs friends some times stopped her on the way and tried to outrage her modesty. For which the petitioner lodged a report in Police Station and also made a written complaint in the department of Forest for taking action against the respondent No.6, but no action has been taken. According tothe petitioner, the respondents No.8 & 9, who are MLA & President, Nagar Palika Parishad are supporting the respondent No.6. Even the ' i respondent No.7, who is the wife of the respondent No.6, also threatened the petitioner to withdraw the report lodged against the respondent No.6. 4. Learned counsel further submits that when no action has been taken by the aufhorities concerned, the petitioner wrote a letter to the higher authorities of the State and she personally appeared in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Korea, and requested for taking action against the culprits and ultimately the petitioner consumed poison in the office of the Superintendent of Police itself on 13-5-2011. Thereafter, the petitioner was admitted in the hospital from 13-5-2011 to 25-5-2011. In spite of the said facts, the respondent No.6 was not arrested and acCording to the petitioner, twice the bail applications of the respondent No.6 were rejected by the District Judge. However, in absence of the petitioner and without considering her objection, the Court of Additional District Judge granted bail to the respondent No.6. The petitioner also approached before the Human Rights Commission, Raipurand National Women Commission,New Delhi. Thus, this petition. 5. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that on the basis of the report lodged by the petitioner, the Police of P.S. Manedragarh has registered the case against the accused persons including the respondent No.6 on 5-4-2011 being crime No.112/11 for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 354 & 355 read with _ Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code. After completing the requisite formalities, the matter was committed to the competent Jurisdictional Court, where the trial is going on. Thus, at this stage, this Court is not inclined interfere with the same, as the 1 i!t?ii'l--i (^ same amounts to two parallel proceedings, which is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved that no proper investigation has been done and other persons i.e. respondents No.7 to 9 have not been made as accused on the basis of report lodged by the petitioner or no action has been taken against them, the petitioner is at liberty to file proper application before the trial Court under the provisions of the Cr.P.C., ifso advised. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge