/^ss=,wsf;;-^ .i.^.^ i f~ co /y. IDiC TTi' E E f^ 'BLE SHRi S.R. >BLE SHRi V.K. SHRiVASTAVA J. WRIT PETiTlON No.282 of 2006. Peiitioner Villagers of Badhiyachuv/a Thana & Teh.-Ambtkapur Distt. Surguja (CG$ ResEiondents Shamim Khan S/o. Not known R/o. Moha!!a Parrachand Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (' ftl •^k/^r \^\3) 2. SanjayTiwari . Poiice Constabie Thana - Ambikapur Dssli, Surguja (CG)' 3. Superintendent of Police Dtett. Surguja (CG) PresenS : Shri V.K. Pandey, Isarned counsei for respondent No.1 Shri Vinay Harit, learned Dy. A.G. for the State (Passed on 28In August, 2006) "he foliowing order of t'ne Court was passsd by ! , ^E^. A Setter written by the petitioners dated 23.12.2005 to the Hon'bie Chief Justice of this Court was directed to be treated as a writ petition. Notice was ordered to the respondents 1 and 2. On behaif of the S.tate, return hss bsen fited. (2) Sn the ietter, it is alleged that ths respondents 1 and 2 highhandsdly and iitsgaily have been recovering money from the petitioners-members for the last two years, v'/hiie administering a threat ^t' that if they do not pay or purehase articles from their shop, they wouid be impli'cated in false cases involving saie and purchase of brown sugar etc. !t is a!Ieged that they have already coilected several thousands of rupees from the members of the petitioner group. (3) in the return fiied on behalf of the State Government, it is stated that on seivice of notice, they recorded the statements of several persons and the aliegations are found to be baseiess. On the other hand, it is sfated by fhe State that the husband of Smt. Anju is an accused in Crime Nos.305/96, 323/96 and 640/35 for offences pursishabie under vartous SecSions of iPC, and fhat her husband has been absconding and efforts ar®being made to trace and arrest him. There is nothing to show that the police who have investigated into the ailegations are biased or fhey have submjtted a fafse report for any extransous or coilaterai reasons/considerations. We cannot doubt the integrity of the report made by the poltee against whom nothing is said either in the ietter which has been treated as writ petition or otherwise. In that view of the matter, we think that there is no warrart to monitor this writ, petition further and it is accordingly disposed of. •} Sd/- Hon'ble the Chief Justic ^' Sdf- V.K. Shrivastava Judge