-cs- (^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION (CRI.) N0. //O/ OF 2007 PETITIONER: Suresh Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Shri Mamraj Shanna, Aged about 42 years, R/o Main Road, Katghora, District Korba (CG). Versus RE8PONDENTS : ^^- A ^''1" .^^1^ ^yy^ .^C^i --4. ^ ^Q''f ^ ^? \ ^ ^' ^ •U- Vf^W'h% ' 'f ^—ssK/ Sjss£y i'.'F-ffi '^''" "^ssssss^-- State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur (CG). Superintendent ofPolice, Korba (CG). Station House Officer, Police Station Katghora, District Korba (CG). Shankar Lal Rajak, S/o Budhdev, R/o Hunkra, Gram Panchayat Jenjra, BIock/ Tehsil/ Police Station Katghora, District Korba(CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OP CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ PetitioB No. 1101 of2007 Petitioner Suresh Kumar Shanni Veraus Respondent State ofChhattisgarh & others SB; Hon'blc Mr. Justicc Satisfe K. Agaifeotri, J Shri Vislinu Kostha, Advocate fbr thc pctitioacr. Shri A. S. Kachwaha, Govt. Advocate for tfae respondents No. 1 to 4, ORDER ( Passed on this 26th day ofFebniary, 2007) Thc following ordcr of tfac Court was passcd by Strtisli K. Agaihotri, J. 1. The petitiouer has filed this petition seekmg a dircction to the respondent No.4 Station House OflBcer, PoUce Station - Katghora, District - Korba to register a case against the i-espondent No.5 (Shankar Lal Raja}^ oa fhe written report dated 9.1.2007 submitted by fhe pctitioner. 2. The brfef facts, teading to filing of this petition is fhat the petitioner, describes Iiunself as 'a rcspectable citizen of Kalghora Tahsfl and activefy working in the inferest of public and as a »- social worker', styling huusetf as Former Prcsident of the Btock Congress Committee, Katghora, District- Korba along with one Ashraf Memon, made a written complaint to tbe Station OfEcer, PoHce Station - Katghora, District - Korba oa 9.1.2007 (Amiexure P/4} against P&uch aad Up-Sarpanch, Shanfearlal of ViUage Panchayat Jenjra for fraudulently seUing of govenunent lands, bearing Pat'-vari Hatka No. 24, Khasra No. 412/3, area 0.28 disnul, situated at Vfflage- Hunkara. y' 3. Learaed couusel for the petitioaer submits fhat tfae respondent No.4, being a police officer is duly bound to register a case on receiving iofonnation ofcogmzabfe oflFence, wifhout goiag into the reliability ofthe in&nnation before registration ofa criittiaal case. Since the respondent No. 4 has faBed to dischai^e his ofiBcial duty, a direction be issued to him to register a criaunsl case against the respondent No.5. 4. In support ofhis submissions, teamed coiuisel for the petitfoner citcd a dccision of Hon'blc Suprcmc Court ia tfac casc of LaUan Chaudliary aad otbers Vs. State of Bihar aad anotter { 2006 AIR SCW 5172^. In tfaat case, a complaint case was filed by the coinplamant Yogendra Praaad in the Court of Sub Divisioual JuddK:ial Magistrate, Sikrahaua against the accused peraous for the offences under Sectioas 147, 148, 149, 448, 452, 323 and 395 of the I.P.C. After registermg that complaiat as Complaiut Case No. 223 C/1996 leamed Judicial Magratrate seat the complaint to the SHO Police Station Ghoiasahan to register an FIR and to mvestigate. Aflter registering the case uuder sections 452, 380, 323/34 of tfae i.P.C. against the accused, tfae chai^e sheet was . submitted only for the offences under Section 452/323/34 offhe I.P.C.. Since the offence was not registered by the concemed SHO for the oflFences imder sectious 147, 148, 149, 448 and 395 ofthe I.P.C.. the Hon'bk Suprcme Court in para 6 of the judgiaent has obseryed that 'ao mvestigation was carried out by the Police in respcct of thc aforesaid sectioas of law and comnutted grave miscarriage ofjustice'. In the above facts the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 8 offhe decision held as under:- "SectioD. 154 of fhe Code fhus casts a statutory duty upon poUce office to registcr the case, as disclosed in the I complamt, and fhen to pioceed with the investigation. The mandate of Section 154 is manifestly ctear that if any iiiformation disctoing a cognizable offence is laid beforc aa officer in charge of a poKce station, such policc office has ao ofher option except to register the case on fhe basis of such information. 5. The facts of fhe present case are entirety diffcreat. The matter appears to be of cwfl nature, where awnership of !and is in dispute. From the dociunents appended to the petition, it appears that fhe revenue authorities of fhe State Oovenunent have already taken up the matter and after eaquuy by the Tahsfldar, Katghora. ia Rcvenue Case No. B/121/2005 a report has been sent to tfae Sub Dwisional Officer, Katgfaoia'on 18.4.2006 (Annexure P/1). 6. In view of the foregoiug, when titie Revenue Authonties, who are responsible for taking carc ofthe Govermneat lands have already taken up fhe matter into consideration and have enquired mto fhe inatfer, no doubt ttiey would certaialy take the action in accordance with law, tfais Court does not find any merit in fhis petition which waraant interference, mvokmg fhc extra ordinary I- jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution ofladia. 7. As a rcsult, the petition is disinissed, summarily. No Qrder as to costs. Thskur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge