^ •3)4.!+ asnos sq+ jad sy ^^ .)<''" if ,1< ,fy <\.":»^' ^^^ -:sj.N3<iNOdS3a3Hj.dos'ay)n3i±ayd z ^ >^'yy"~~~'} •a|+!4. 3snD3j344. -iad sy ^^iP8' tf^ ^.4 ^ :aaNOij.iJ.3d 3H1 jo savin3i±yyd T VIQNI dO NOI±n±I±SN03 3HJ. do 9zz ai^iiav aaoNn NOii.Lm.ad ±iaw •jndsD|jg 4.3UJ.SIQ 'jnduD+pg 'DjDdjssD)! ^ ^o j.uapissj 'SJDS^ £9 4-noqo pafio 'UDfViij. pDSDJ(j D/Dg Ijqg J.O UOS 'IJDMIJ. pDSDjy DAL|pO/<y •fr •jndsD|!g '4.u3iuL|S! 1904.53 33!|0d |Dj38ds 4.0 p34.SOd /(|4.u3sajd 'jo4.33dsui -qn$ '>)!USD/V\ i^si^sy uiis^g' •jndsD|ig 'a3i|0d ^o 4uapU34.U!jadns 34.1. '^ •jndi.oy 'uD/wDL|g 'S">l'a '3l"o|-f j.o Aj+siuiw ^ '/<jD+3J3as 344. 46noji|j. 11JD6SIJ.4.0443 ^o 3+04.S 'T -<^ "tft .-8-^%^ -^^- ^^^^^. .^ sj^a'qNOdsaa s/\ •jndsD|ig 'Dpuo>)JDs 'DjDdi|D6uDg j-o +u3pisaj sjoaX gg pa6o 'und>|!UDW SDg iuoy p4S ^o uos 'und^iuDw ;8taNOI±U.3d SDQ iuDXi|s @ nuupw ^^49 -(^dM 800Z ^OSQ<by~ON (:i?JI NOI-l-I-L3i| •iIaM andsy-iig.i.^aan.L^^iqnr do jLano^HsiH 3H±NI ^^/^j '•s»-% «*; Vi3ft; T.i»: HIGH COURTOF CHI-IATTiSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION(Cr.) N0.6985 OF 2008 PETITIONER Mannu@ Shyam Das Manikpuri Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 dNhe Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri SatishK.Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri SameerOraon, Advpcatefpr the petitioner. Shri.V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Advocate Generalfor the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passedon this 16th day ofJune, 2011) 1. l-teardlearned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent/State to make a detailed enquiry in the complaints made by the petitioner and several ofher perspns narrated in para 8 of the petition by an imparfjal agency and after submission of their report take appropriate action against all ths concerned found gyilty for their acts of omission and cpmmission and to pass such other orders for gross violation of human right of the petitioner and further to grant appropriate compensation. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on 3-8-2007a report has been lodged bythe respondent No.4 against the petitionerstating that in the year'2006 the son of the respondent No.4 namely; Santosh Tiwari made an application for the post of Police Constable at Jagdalpur and at that time the petitioner demanded an amount of Rs.55,000/-. Accordingly, the respondent No.4 paid the sameto the petitioner, however, the said Santosh Tiwari has not been appointed as Constable the 1 respondent No.4 asked the petitioner to return back the amount of ssy fSS^ sy" rf*: ».* '« '^' •^ 5. ^ 6. Rs.55,000/-. When the said amount has not been returned, the respondent No.4 lodged a reportagainstthe petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has not received any amount from the respondent No.4. In fact, the petitioner has no relation with the Police Department and he is earning his livelihood by doing the work of self-employment. According to the petitioner, the report has been lodged by making false and concocted story against the petitioner. The respondent No.Swho is working at Ratanpur Police Station is acting against the petitioner in a discriminatory manner. The petitioner made several complaints against the respOndent No.3 before the higher authorities, but no action has been taken till dafe, Even some other persons have also made complaints against the petitioner, but no action has been taken. The action on the part pf the respondent authoritiesis in violation of the petiticfner's fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 & 300A ofthe Constitution of India. Hence, this petition. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respohdentssubmits that this petition is not maintainable at this stage in light of the judgment and order passed by the Supreme Courtin Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & others . The petitioner may raise the aforesaid grievance under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the competent authorities. The Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu (supra), observed as under: "11. In this connection we would like to state that if a-person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach • the ^L (2(108) 2 SCC 409 .fi!fe;3-3& j •f1'-: ' • •^- °^...'''?!. ^ITW^^^--•^ sSI-' 7. 3^' Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.,by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactony result in the sense that either the FIR isstill not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file anapplication under Seetion 156(3) Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate ccincerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed hefore the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistratecan also under the same provisioh monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation." For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is liable to ^- be and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authority in view of the decision of the Supreme Court renderedin Sakiri Vasu (supra). No order asto costs. Satteb^Agnibow judge \< u Gowri y'