1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. No. ( 0% O 2— moo: ;q§ /Rajesh Sharma, S/o. Shri Banwari Lal Sharma, aged about 33 years, R/o. Kotra Road, Near Police Station, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Home affairs, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Superintendent of Police, Raigarh (C.G. Station House Officer, City Kotwali, Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT .PETITION UNDER ARTICLE zzs/gL-OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER n. f”: Y ) XI-HC—78 HW,WW,W w €§§32<£09u a1 200 WW<W) WWW wmm WW§WW éiwm Emmwm w 22.1 .2007: Mr. Manindra Shrivastava learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Sunil Otwani for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Harit learned Dy. AG appearS for the respondents/State. The petitioner has filed this petition against the inaction of the respondents in not registering the offence despite the fact that the report lodged by the petitioners is for the cognizable offence. The grievance of the petit er is that the petitioner and two other persons namely Umesh Sharma nd Kishorilai Sharma were the directors of theCompany registered under the Companies Act. However, the above two persons with a conspiracy t oust the petitioner from the Company gave a false statement before th Company Law Board that the petitioner has resigned from the Compan though the petitioner never submitted such resignation and thereby th y attempted to oust the petitioner from the Company and deprived him th the assets of the Company. Learned counsel for the p titioner submits that on the report of the petitioner an inquiry was condu ed by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Kharsia, Raigarh but the said o icer after conducting inquiry has given a report that no cheating or dishon sty has been practiced as atleged in the complaint. The compiaint is bas less and false and the nature of dispute is of civil nature. He submits tha this report was submitted on 29.5.2006: however, even after this report detailed statement of the petitioner was recorded on 22.8.2006 and there fter there is no progress in the inquiry. g (/s/ P.T.O. I N5 i n i XI-HC-78 HW,W§,W Wm .w.a...Q2./.o.). a1 200 WW(W> WWW WW%'WIRER WWW matwm én‘wm l have heard {earned cuunse! for the petitioner as also for respondents/State and perusedt e report of Annexure P-7. From the averments made in the petition and report of Annexure P- 7 prima facie it appears that so e detailed investigation was conducted on the compiaint of the petitioner by the Poiice as per the direction of the concerned Superintendent of Poli e. It further transpiree that the inquiry is stiii going on. In the aforesaid circumstar ces, no case is made out in favour of the petitioner for direction to the respondents to regieter the offence as the inquiry is still going on. With the aforesaid observations the petition is disposed of at this stage. Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra Judge 5t RT.O. C\5 d