3 ^' ^ -A " IN THE HIGH COURT OE a-lHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ petitioh No. 2-3-9-9 of 2001. PETITIONER A^ . .„" S^^ ^v^-/ ^•" RESPONDEKTS : Gaurhari, aged about—16 years, son of Maheshwar, resident of village - Kotrapali., Police Station Chakradhar- Nagar, Tehsil & Distt. Ralgarh (C.G.). VERSUS ! 1. Raja Naad Yadav, Head Cpnstable | No. 232,»posted at poliee station j, ClT.akradhar Nagar, Teh. & Distt. ' Raigarh (C.G.):. 2. S.uperlntendent of Police, RaigarH DJ-stt. Raigarh (C.G.). 3'. Inspeetor Generai of Police, •,; Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.).^ 4. Director General of Police, • Ralpur, Dlstt. Fca,tpur (C.G.). WRZT PETITIQN UNDERARTICLE3 226/227 OE- THE GONSTITqTIOI'i OP-INDIA.{ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRTT PETmON No. 2399 of2001 Gaurhari. VERSUS Raja Nand Yadav & Others. WMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226^227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AenShotei.J, Present: Shri Vipia Punjabi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A-N.Bhakta, Advocate for 1he respondent No. 1. Shri Arun Sao, Govermnent Advocate forihe State/respondent No. 2 to 4. ORDER • (Passed on 23rd day ofNovember, 2011) On 16.11.2011, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner was granted time to seek instructions with regard to the status ofthe dispute. Shri Bhakta submits that despite his best efforts, he could. not obtain any instructions from his client. Be that as it n»y;it appears that the petitioner is not mterested in prosecutingfhe matter. Thus, Ifae petition is dismissed. However, if tfae grievance of the petitioner still survives, the petitioner is at liberty to approaeh fhe competent crimmal court as provided under the provisions oftiie Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973. — .'.jmt Sd/- Satish K. Agmiiutri Judge