fy^- "^1^ afe^«^s&> HICTi COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILABPUR W.P. N0. 312 OF 2Q01 PETITIONER Dr. Manik lal Shanna, r/o. Shri Ram Lal Sharsna, aged about 65 years, R/o. Sargaon, Toh. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) RBSPONDENTS Vs. 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretaiy, Home Department, Raipiir 2. Director General of Police, Goveranient of Chhattisgarh, Raipur 3, Supermtendent of Police, Bilaspur (CG) 4, Station House Officer, Police Sttion Huri, Distt. BUaspur (CG) 5. Director General ofPoUce, CID Braach, poUce head quarters, Raipur 6. State of Madhya Pradesh through fhe Secretary, Home Department, Vallabh Bhawaa, Bhopal (MP) 7. Director General of PoUce, Govemnient of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal 8, Director Geueral ofPoUce, CID Braach, PoUce Headquarters, Bhopal WmT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OP THB CONSTITUTUION OF INDIA (SB: Hpirble Mr. Satlsh K. A&aihotri, J.l Smt, Renu Kochar, counsel for fhe petitioner, Sliri Arviad Dubey, Paael Lawyer for the State, ORDER (Passed oa tlais 14th day of November 2007) Learaed counsel appearmg for the petitiouer seeks a writ m tlie nature of mandamus directiiig fhe respondeuts to hold CBI enquiry on fhe suspicious deafh of Praoiod Kuinar Paadey aad Dukharan Verm.a. Deceased Pramod Kumar Paiidey is son of the petitioner aad deceased Dukharaa Verma is allegedly friend of fhe petitiouer. The matter was taken to fhe Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur --2-- ^ 3. whereia the poHce station Him filed aa appUcation for closing fhe niatter. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur by order dated 22.08.2000 (Annexure P/5) rejected the appUcation of tiie poUce station Hird aad dn'ected for re-investigation oftfae case. Learaed counsel appearing for tlie petitioner further subnuts that on re-iavestigation, the poUce auth.orities have found that fhe death of deceased Pramod Kuinar Paadey aad Dukharaa Venna was caused on account of accident. Be fhat as it niay, wifhout expressiag any opiaion on nierit of the case, siiice fhe re-iiivestigation was done on th.e order dated 22.08.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, the petitiouer ought to have raade an appUcation/coniplamt that despite the order, proper iavestigation has uot been done^before fhe same Conrt passing fhe order. In view of the foregomg, this Court is uot mclined to iaterfere with the criiniiial iiivestigation at tiiis stage. Suguna However, the petitioner is at Mberty to take recourse of statutor}7 reniedy that inay be available to him iinder the provisions of law. Thus, th.is applicatiou is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty, Sd7- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge