-c^, IHTHB HieHCOURTOFJiroiCATUREATBILASPORtC.O.l ve'nmassst. WMT PEfmWS IIO?6S~€/20<» ^ Manik Mehta, S/o. Shri Vishnu Eh.itt Mehta, Aged about 34 years, R/o. 48/6, Nehru Nagar (Wes^, Bhilai, District Diug (C.G.) VEI^dS RECTOIIDENTS / l-<^ y y 1. StateofChhattisgarh, Throu^i its Secretary, DqMrteaent of Home (PoUce), Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Direcfor General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Senior Superintendent. of Police, I)utg(C.G.) 4. Investigating OfBcer P/c. PoUce Station), P.S. Supela, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 5. N.K. Tank, S/o. Purushottam Jethabhai Taak, Aged about 54 years, R/o. 67/2, Nehru Nagar (West), P.S. Supela, Bhilai, District DuigtC.G^ <6. Bipin Bansal, S/o. Jz^dish Sia^i Bansal, Agedabout38years,R/o. UG/40, Vaishali Nagar, Supela, Bhyilai, District Duig (C.G.) 7. Rajesh Sm^i, S/o. Paras Singh, Aged 'about 28 years, R/o. Umarpoti, Loknagar, Utai, District Durg(C.G.) FS'mnoB wssx Mavseas 226/227 OP THB iN" ii. ^S*~~5;<?. M^^s^-'^ covissri'Wvm ov vsm^ff^vssaSSKX a^^^^^ MATURB CW MAMDAMUS. CBl ORAm. PROmBn^^ ABD paROfrw^wjrrASSxvsarc^wva'rS.aKDEKOKtMiH^ MRBcnoN OR mRBc'nons. The petitioner, above named, most huriibly and respectfulty siibmits as under:- 1 01. RAICTICUlARSOF'ntBPBnTnMnER: i As stated above in the Gause titte. T lj»KlsMS XI-HC-22 an^T^ir f?^R;3Ti^r SbH af^T V 731 '<|w|c|q, ®T(1wiS,RiyiUy 3TT^5TIRW ^.^..^:..^.5.^ ^, w^v{\ *«i*•yv-»"-r-''-—-v-"--g^20o£~ Rl'b4 73 aii^K'wiigrHfsa' 11.7,2005 countcl L^my pre^rred res^ondcrit reiitt 2(1)05 mSaaae Smt Fouzia Mirza, ShriR.R. Smha, Panel Heard on adinission. The pctitioner has 226/227 of the Constitution petitioner is the tenant of in question on inoafUly respoiident No.5. On 28.2,: 9.00 p.m. aad teft for hls hoi^se 1.3.2005 when hc was aboutl Tata Indica & Tata 407 stoppcp No.5 alongwith his servaats soiae gunda etemcnts, stepp^d some ofthe stoek luaterlals of his house. On fhis fhc situation, aftcr reaching the fhat locks ofhis shop havc bc^n by other locks, therefore, he lodge the coinplaint against ^i policc registered the oflFence ftirther case is fhat rcspondcjit eoiaplamt lodged by thc offencc comimtted by respoad^nt theft of inaterials £romfhc chai^e sheet under Section uitder ipondcjit pct^tii shob *i<i?ci41-t ><iH<iTffte<^l'<Ri«i< ^3il^ir3n^r fbr the petitioner. 'er for the respondeat tttte writ petition uader Article |of ladia with fhe aBcgation fhat the No.5 hereni, he took the shop aad regularfy payiag fhe rent to the petitioner closcd tus shop at On the veiy next moming i.e. on to teavc for his shop two vehlete i.e. m.6ront of his housc and respoiident ^mely Rajesh & Bipitt Bansal aad with out fiom the yehicte an.d dumped shop namety Future Vision in front rushed to his shop to check the ^hop in question the pctitk>ner found replaced and samc has been locked |wcnt to fhc Police Station Supela to ispondent No.5 to 7 herein aud fhc Crime No. 193/05. Thc pctitioner's No.4 has not iavest^ated into the ^tioner, not takfen the cogaizancc of Nos. 5 to 7 of eriminal trespass aad owncd by thc petidoiter aad fited fhe of.fhe IPC with the cormwaac» of itepp^d ofbis petiljioner 4 ^-''Fl XI-HC-22 an^T^T feNisn^T stiHiqxifsa •-.^ 3^''^i';<ifi'li, ^Tflu'Ko, Riciiuy &11^1 ^s|<*> MW<?\\ ^i^itb ••••••••••••••••••••• g^ 200S Icl'b^ •••••••••"••• 74 w^i g'wim^fer -2-' Ultima|tety respo^idcnt petitioner aloi^g wlfh No )reayin! >n<r >IIUE|I! dut respondcnt Nos. 5 to 7. mandam.us coiamanding shop back to fhe fumiture and docunients ctcj. directed not to iuterfcre in the coinpensation for the inatcrial^ bcca prayed fhat respondent offence of lurking house brea4u] wroagty obtaming fhe posscssi^n Coimsel for ftie petitk»n^;r ffled fhe charge shcet for coiiu^is thc IPC against respondcnt No^. offence of thefit is also aiiade thercfore, resppndent No.4 Section 379 ofthc IPC, Having heard leamed thc pctttion Ss praycr made present petition is inisconceiv^d; any poUce aufhoiity to file the c|hi against any person. it is an registered the casc ou the mattcr and thereafiter, ffled petitioner is not satisfied wifh) shect has bcen fited ^ainst pctitiouer is at Uberly to inov^ provisions of fhe Cr.P.C. and 'st'l'illt'l^-l WRlfff fetfl- <R]+&|< ^3]f^IT3II^T fsty, it 'baa been piayed thata writ of Nos.2 & 3 to givc possession of enttoe stock materials, flxtures, aad ftuther respondent No.5 be busiaess ofthe petitioncr and to pay worth Rs. 12,50,000/-. It bas also >.4 be directed to take cognizancc of |ing aad house trespass at night aad ofthe ptoperiy ofthe petitioncr. subinits fhat respondent No.4 has ission of offencc uadcr Section 448 of i. 5 to 7 herein, whereas, on iacts the against respondent No.S to 7 and to havc ffled the chaiy sheet undcr OUg^lt coiiuasel fhdrcin for the petitioner, I have perused aad I ain of the opinion fhat the 1, no such direction can be given to c|hai^e shcet under a particular ofFencc a^initted position that respondcnt Nb.4 of petitioHer, investigated into PIC charge shcct also. Now, if fhe the offenee under which thc cbssge respondcnt Nos. 5 to 7 then the to concemed MaystraSs under fhe ^btaia a direction from the M^istrate coa3|iplam.t XI-HC-22 3^ '^IIIM'M, 81T^*i'is> i'l^iiuy HIHCtl SPll^ 3li^l'4?|th ._ vf"^^' Tl^ 2001 75 f^% an^r^r RaNisn^r 5b^]<=b RiBf^T ^ Ro&^n'? .^. in accordaace wifh law. A^ posscssk>n ofshop in qucstic|n cannot be givcn ia the writ petitioner can avaB fhe rcmcd|y law in accordaacc wifh law. In the resnlt, tfae petiti^m bc dismissed and it is hereby far aa the direction for deliveiy of (n to the pctitioncr te conccmed, same jurisdiction, for that purposc also th.e Iv avaDable undcr thc civU and crmiiaal <t)i<ilfi41-i iiici>'ffteA<Rf^i< ^srt^iran^T has nosubstan.cc, same is Uablc to jiismissed at thc admissron st^c itself. Sd/- LC.Bhadoo Judge