LN_THE_HQN'&LEHIGH_CQURT_QF_CHJ1ATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.1 CRIMINAL MLSC. PETITIQN. N0.. fl OF 2010 PETITIONER tM-^' ..^^. ^^^ ^^-••" y' RESPQNDENTS : 1 ' 3, Abdul Shafiq, S/o Abdul Hakim, aged about 46 years, R/o Moudhapara, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) Police Station House, Gole Bazar, Through: the Officer-in-Charge of the Station. Smt. Sheela Keshwani, aged about 85 years, Widow of Late Shri Lokumal, B-55, Kamla Nagar, New Delhi PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Criminal Misc. Petition N0,306/2010 Petitioners Respondent Smt. Saroj Goet and another Versus The State of Chhattisgarh and another Petitioner Respondent Petitioner Respondent Criminal Misc. Petition N0.658/2010 Mohammad Salim Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Criminal Misc. Petition N0.659/2010 Abdul Shafiq Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Petitioner Respondent Criminal Misc. Petition N0.660/2010 Kamal Kumar Ramrakhiya Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Qthers (Petition under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the petitioner) Present: - Shri Sanjay K. Agrawat, Shri U. K. S. Chandel and Shri Prakash Mishra; counsel for the respective petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Government Advocate for the State. Shri Ratan Pusty, counsel for complainant- Smt. Sheela Keshwani. ORALORDER (Passed on 16th pf November, 2010) S41 "(9l-d sjnxauuy) OIOZ-10-ZZ UQ •s6u!p8300jd IEUILUUO Buiieiiiui jo^ siseq ou si sjsij} }ei(l uoiuido UMO sii) Buuspuej jndiey 'eoiiod ^o tuapuetuusdns AI.IQ eqt 01600Z-ZI-80 uo oiusiu e }ues jndiey 'uosnoesojd 'JOtogjiQ A}nd9Q p soyjo ai<) iei(} s}iiuqns OS|B |esunoo psujesn "ino epeiu si eseo ou }E4i 6wye}s eoiiod jo }U8pU3}uuedns siit ajojaq yodsj e paffliuqns (t7|,-d sjnxsuuv) 6002-2t-0t psiep oiueui s)i spiA jezeg \OQ uofye^s soi|0d 841 'Affuenbasqns "(no epeui pu si soue^o psBsiie }ew Buiteis |,|,-d ejnxauuy spw 9003-ZO-Ot "o so!|bd ^o tuepustuuedns si(t sjojeq yodaj e psniLuqns aojfod .10 tuspuetuusdns AI!O si() 'yodsj |euy }eqi jo uoissiiuqns jeye uaAS 'aiui} ^o tuiod ^isjeytp }G }B4t payiiuqns jsyynj s; i| "QOOZ-90-0£ uo jndrey '9}ej}si6e|/v leioipnr ^siyo p ynoo 94} ui yodsj |euy e peniiuqns 'ino speiu si souayo }Q uojssjtUtuoo JQJ sseo ou yeiQ 6uipuy pue siuuo piesejo^e 9i|l ui paie6!tS9AU! soiiod 841 'iUBMfoiig yssdny Aq pa6po| ijodsj 34) uo }B4} pswiiuqns sjauojiitsd eAitosdsej 94} jo^ |esunoo peujee-i •g "O'd'l 84UO ^ U0!}099 1|11M peej (,/fr ' 89fr 'ZSt' 'OZfr uoi}oas JSpun eouayo .(o uoissituiuoo 6ui6s||e sjauoiiitsd ~8l<} ||B }suie6e yodaj e pe6po| pei( lueMfoqg tfssdny 'iueMqsax e|99L)s 'lius-iueuieidiuoo eqi ^o J3p|oq Aeujoftv .(O JSMOd se 'ujejsijM 900Z-10-SO Psiep -y-rd e jepun jndiey 'jezeg 109 uoi}e}s soi|0d Aq psjatsiBsj gOOZ P 66"ON 9iuuo e ui pesnooe epeuj useq 9Aeq oqM 'sjeuoitjiad 9Aiio9dsaj eqi Aq pa|y ussq SAeq 'o'd'-iQ 34t ^o 39^ uoipeg jspun p3|y suo!t!}ad snoaueifsosiLU IBUIIUUO jnoj pa}B)S9Joje 341 -s "A||euy pjesii si jaueiu eq» 'seiijed 841 JO^ |asunoo peujeei p }ussuoo 94} q}j/v\ Superintendent of Police has also sent a report to the Director General of Police stating that after investigation, the finat report has been submitted before the Magistratewhich is pending consideration and has also stated that on the basis of the material examined by him, no case for commission of offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is made out. Learned counsel further submitted that from the report submitted by the Police and also from other reports referred to above, it is cleariy madeout that the petitioners have been falsety implicated and subjected to harassment. Learned counsel submits that a civil suit was fited by the complainant, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. A complaint which was made by the Complainant before the Magistrate, has also been dismissed for want of prosecution. He submits that from the entire material available on record, it is clear that no case for commission of alleged offence is made out, and therefore, under these circumstances, F.1.R. and entire criminal proceedings bequashed, particularly because, even after submission of final report by the Police on 30-08-2008, the concemed Magistrate has not taken any decision whatsoever in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Supreme Courtin the case of V. P. Shiivastava v. Indian Explosives Ltd. & Others, JT 2010(10)SC 479. 4. On the other hand, leamed State counsel submits that as the Potice itself has submitted a final report before the learned Magistrate, the matter is now required to be decided by the learned Magistrate in exercise of power under Section 1 73 of the Cr.P.C. and as the matter has remained pendingwithout any decision having beentaken, this petition is 1 pre-mature. He submits that the learned Magistrate may accept or take other proceedings, and therefore, at this stage, the petitioner is not justified in approaching this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that even thougH the report and the material placed before the Police disclosed commission of offence, the Police has not made proper investigation and submitted final report, which is not binding on the Magistrate and the Magistrate is well within its jurisdiction to take appropriate decisi^ including registration of a criminal case by taking cognizance. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in so far as dismissal of suit and complaint are concerned, appropriate steps have already been taken for restoration of those proceedings. He relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Lat versus Dhafmendra Bafna and Another, (2009) 7SCC 685. 6. Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counseT for the respective parties, in the opinion of this Court, at this stage, when the matter is pending consideration before the learned Magistrate, upon submission of report by the Police, it would not be proper to undertake any examination and scrutiny of material. Though, there is no bar to exercise power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., even at this stage, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and that a final report has already been submitted by the Police before the Magistrate, 1 am not inclined to invoke power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. under circumstances obtaining ih the case on this date. uo pajsisiBsj 900<;/66"ON SIUUQ uj jndrey 'jezeg 109 uoitets soi|0d jo 90t|0d 341 Aq pafliLuqns }jod9j |euy 10 siseq aiti: uo sBuipssoojd/uoispep sieudojdde s>|ei 0} jndiey '8te4SiBe|/\| leioipnr jeiqo 0} uoipajip e I(}IM ^o pssodsip A||euy SJE suoiffisd 9594} 'A|6ujpjooov '6 9seo eqi ui sjauoBipd 34} isuieBe lueMfoqg ysedny p )uie|diuoo syi uo jndiey 'jezeg 109 UO!}B}S eoiiod ie pajstsiBej SQOZ p 66"ON eiuuo I)}IM uojpauuoo ui sojiod 3i|} Aq penituqns yodej sq} uo MBI qijM aouepjoooe ui uojsioap eieudojdde 3^B} 0} 9}ej}S!6ey\| psujaouoo 941 0} uoipsjip e qiiM p pssodsip eje suoiiRsd esay} ^i 'psAjas aq pjnoM eoiisn? ^o tssjetui 'uoiuido Aiu ui 'eAoqeuiajsq sqdej6ejed sqi ui psssnosip se uoiiisod |e63| pue |en}oej SMI uoiiejspisuoo 0}U! 8uD)ei "g •yodsj |euy eqi pafaj jo }daooe o) Jsyiis uoisioap e 3>|et pue puiiu leioipnf s}i 6uiA|dde Aq Siueujjuediuoooe sq} pue yodsj |euy si)} sziuitnjos A|sno|ndnjos o} MBI Aq peuoipues Aiuoqine S}! \iwm Ainp e y)iM psuiofus si ynoo )U3tediuoo ai|i uayt "o'd'-'O ^o £Zluoiioss jspun p8}e|dLua}uoo se yodej |euy e o\ui saieuiiu|no uoiieBj^AU! ue uayM 'inq sssj6ojd Aep o»Aep S}i i<oieM pue uoiieBitseAUj ue ^o >|oej} d995j 01 ynoo e jo^ pu si }i isyi psAjesqo ynoo eiuejdns 94} 'I.9S OOS t feCfifc) 'swifio PUB eueAjieH fo aieis snsiaA siaiffo pue qBws }eduiss .10 aseo ei)t ui 'jsqio 941 jo ABM euo yodsj qons p uoissiiuqns uo uoisioep jsdojd 9)fei 01 pajinbej si 3iejisiBe|/\| eqi 'os eq }e4i j| 'etejtsiBei^ feioipnr ^SILIQ 94} sjojsq 900Z-90-0£ "° se )foeq se uoRe&tseAU! jeye 80i|od 841 Aq payiLuqnsuasq sey yodej |euy 34} tei|t si sejyed 8Ai}03ds3J sqt Aq petndsip ueaq pu SABII yoiyM 'spe^ peniuipe 941 iuoj^ puy | ie4/y\ "z Tumane F.1.R. lodged byRupesh Bhojwani against the petitioners strictly In accordance with law within a reasonable period and as far as possible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.It will be open for the respective parties to take appropriate proceedings and recourse to remedy available to them under the law in the circumstances. Sd/— Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge