\^ <%^ o^ Harris Peter, S/o Shri L. Peter, Aged 53 years, workmg as laspector, G-ovenunent Ra3way Police, Bilaspur, R/o Jarhabhata, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarb) 1 State of Cluiattisgarli, through the Secictaiy, Department of Hoiue (Police), D.K.S. BhawaQ, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Director Geaeral of PoHce, Police Headquarters, Raipur (Cbtiattisgarh) Superinteudent of Police, District Koriya (CIihattisgarh) Cily Superuitendent of PoUce Chirinuri, District Koriya (C.O.) Dr. Mahmood Nayyar Azam, S/o Late Shri Md. Isbaque, aged about 55 years, R/o West Chiruniri Collieiy, Post - Chirimiri, District Koiiya (Chhatdsgarh) Anaat Raui Sahu, aged about 50 years, S/o Shri Safau, workmg as Assistaat Sub-Inspector, P.S. KotwaU, Raigarh (Chhattisgarli) i^ raa? Appearance: Shri R.S. Marhas, Counsel for fhe petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jam, Panel Lawycr for the State on advsmce copy/respoadents No. 1 to 4. ¥- $03.10.2007) Heard. This petition has been filed tbr quashing of fhe proceedia.gs initiated agatnst the petitioner under Section 29 of fhe PoUce Act, 1861, by issiiuig awrit in the nature ofcertiorari. The petitioner has also prayed for coiapensation ofRs.5 laldis joiafly aiid severaUy against tfae respondents. r.f,f-<^__.a»3^=- W.P.(S) No.5892 of 2007 3 Leamed ^counsel for the petitioner subniits fhat the Istgasa filed urider Section 29 of fbe albresaid Act is apparenfly barred by Itmitation, therelbre, it should have been disinissed, as ban-ed by liiaitation, but fhe concemed Court has taken coguizance and issued notice to fhe petitioner. He also submits fhat fhe Isigasa has been filed saying that there is soine order of the High Court, but iu fact, there is no such order passed by the High Court aad ia fhis view of fhe inatter also, Istgasa if not taken to be filed independently on its inerits, was not required to be filed ia. this case. He further subinits fliat pertaiuiag to the sam.e issue, fhe departmental proceediags were drawn aad the petitioner was exonerated iii fhe said proceediags, tlierefore, this Istgasa could not have been ffled against fhe petitioner on fhe same grouna. However, after arguing for som.etune, leanied couusel for fke petitioner prays for •roifhdrawal of fhis petition wifh libei-ty to raise all fhese grounds before the concerued court. This prayer is not opposed by learaed counsel for fhe State. Tbe same is aUowed. The petition is disiaissed, as withdrawa, wifh the aforesaid Uberty granted in favour ofthe petitioner. __»——— Sd/- ^- sunllls Sinha 4<~^ [.-"' Shyna