^ <^p i\/ -3-0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WP (C) No. OF 2007 Petitioner :: PhooUcunwar W/o. Shri Dhanush Mehar, aged about 48 years, Caste 1 s J^-- .. _ _ . . . , : ^"^tf^"'.. Mehar (Scheduled Caste), resident of ^^'0 <?'^-"A</--""' ....•••"^4ii--\v-K^O')"F Parpodi, Police Station Saja, Outpost Devra, Dista-ict Durg (C.G.) °>} Respondents c Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through 1) Senior Superintendent of Police, District Durg (C.G.) 2) OfGcer-in-charge, Police Station Saja, District Durg (C.G.) 3) B.S.Chandrakar, S/o. not known, aged about not known, Tehsildar Saja, District Durg (C.G.) IT PETITION UNDER^ ARTICLES 226 OF THE ,. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA^ FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS_TO THE RESPONDENTS TO INVESTIGATE THE CRIME N0.224/06 HSTERED AT POLICE STAT1QN SAJA UNDER [•lONS 354, 294 AND 323 OF IPC AND 3(1)(111 IEDULED_CAS'raS/CHEDULED ^ TRIBES ^ ^ ^y ;VENTION OF ATROCITIESl ACT, 1989 vs. i*~s^ '% ^ an^l'qil R-li.'sb Sf^V SS*fW ^i^t w ^- ?^ -^ww^. ®Tilwis,facii-yy S^^tR^ _ltJ..'..^I?21^'..^.s'fztcA^~ t|i*<tiraiHt<*i fe^ar' <m^iwiwgf?g SB : Hon'ble ShriManindra Mo 20-01-2011 Shri Uttam Pandey, counss Shri V. V. S. Murthy, Depi Govt. Advocate for the State/respc None for respondent No.3. Heard. This petition has been filed| to respondents No.1 & 2 to inv petjttoner on 13-11-2006 and to investigation be monitored by this| From the return filed by tti( basis of report lodged by the petf Polce and during the pender investigation has closed th®cas^ investigation, acoording to Police,| Leamed counsel fbr the p^ Khatma" under Section 173 Jurisdicttonal Magistrate, which is| in view of the subsequent petition and that report was airea) opinion of this Court, no purpos^ pending. Considering the subm) petitioner that report under S| consideration before the M^! Jurisdictional Magistrate i.e. Judij 'wifepfrr tiwaf •? fe^l-TfSreTt '^srfwisn^T fen Shriya'tiiava.A for the petitioner. ty Advocate General with Satlsh Gupta, 'ndentsNo.1 &2. jbythe petitjoner for jssuance of'djrection Istjgate upon the report lodged by the pbmit charge sheet and ateo to direct the ICourt- respondents, it is revealed that on the [ioner, the matter was investigated by the ^oy of this petition, the Police, after under Crime No.222 of 2006 as after Ino case is made out. :itioner however submits that the report of the Cr.P.C. submitted before the still pending consideration. jevelopments duringthe pendency ofthe ly submitted before the Magistrate, in the would be served by keeping this petition ssion made by learned counsel for the 'ction 173 of the Cr.P.C. is pending jistrate since 2008, the concerned <al Magistrate First Class, Saja shail duly [Tfi^ ifeii )' s? %!.^f:,KSS^QsHC-22 Y <^-;''iiy ' ^^£S^S^';/ aii^r^ir W sm^f St^f^T ^iH^ '^ Tumsne OT ¥- 3^ ^ITqRPI, ^rfrffTS, fqwwy ^n^?r 'tRRR <j^,(;.rc?(^.23,^1^^ •••/'"^ 200 »)1»IWIshtllcb ^e^ff' consider the report in accordance within a period of three months frof order. Needtess to emphasize, if grj would be open for the petitioner to be available to her. With the aforesaid direction, Ifie petition is finally disposed off. iwith law and take decision thereupon fn the date of receipt of a copy of this ^vance of the petitioner still survives, it Itake recourse to such remedy as may i*i''<t<rt<il-i 'w^i 4fvS <fiiwi< ^siPgiran^r Sd/- M.M. Shrivastava Judge r'f^^feTt