^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR '; lm^'X^3'' '.:;:'1- CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION N0:^" 7 OF 2010 APPLICANT ..r'!^>^ •^^r Meena Verma, aged about 30 years, W/o Prahlad Jaiswal, R/o Mohalla - Karbala, PoliceStation City Kotwali, Tahsil and Dsitrict Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANT: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRlMINAL PROGEDURE, 1973 FOR INVOKING EXTRA ORDINARY INHERENT POWERSOF THE HON'BLE COURT SEEKING OUASHIlNTG OF THE REGISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL CASE UNDERSECTION-376' OF INDIAN PENALCODE. CRIME N0. 440/^010 ON 07.1f.2010 ON THE BASIS OF REPORT ALLEGADILY LODGED BY APPLICANT .-../'" $••. /'/!s ff ^ ^ ^ S fi ^epa'^.l. I ^-S^SS^XfrHC-22 an^i^r {<-][+ 3V^V WEiwgRg y^ ^sipiRT^, ^Tfl'y'i's, facii'My t^y-.'^.f. KM.'?^IO sii^i'wiw ^riN SB : Hon'bte Shri ManjndraMottan Shrivastava. J. Parie lodfied On 02-12-2010 Shri U. K. S. Chandel, Shri Avinash K. Mishra, Heard. This petition has been quashment of alleged F.1. R. namely Smt. Meena Verma in atleging commission of offence against one Bhavesh Sharma. Number 440/2010 has been regis<( Learned counsel for the newsp^per reports, the petitioner Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur has| Bhavesh Sharma on the compt^i petftioner has never lodged any of offence undsr Section 376 of Bhavesh Sharma. Learned counl even though, the petitioner has n|ot has registered an offence agaji therefore, the same is liable to be | On the other hand, learnecj whether the F.1. R. was lodged by| Station, is a matter of investigatio|n, no such report was lodged by her| Police Stationand get her statem^nt coun]sel for the applicant. Lawyer for the State. ^l^lt'i^l'l ^i^^T ^ FS^ ^-^K i? 3)pgif sn^i silich Filed by the petitioner seekins by the applicant-compiainant police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur lunder Section 376 of the I.P.C. the basis of that F.1. R., Crime lered. betitioner submits that from the ;ame to know that pol!ce of Police ' registered offence against one jint of the petitioner whereas the complaint alleging commission the I.P.C. against herty the said ^el for the petitioner submits that lodgejany report,yet the Police |nst one Bhavesh Sharma, and ^uashed. State counsel submita that as to the petitioner or not in the Police i, and if the petitioner claims that she may approach the concerned recorded. [^•^fe-t nlot XI-HC-22 - TS^ ^Tpn?ra, ^ifl'y'id, ^r?irey ^.^-^.^.^.•?ya/Io 31^1 ^i 'fyiro's^w wqN'-gfl^ Tumane sii^r ?%iw ^iftcr L- '^T^^'-f ^Tl^cTl' ^ 1^^ ^^.K ^i-sri?gi; snt^ have considered the subt)jssion made by learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitionl that no report was lodged by hejr alleging commission of offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C registered such crime itseff, is a mjatter of investigation. Under these circumstances averments made in this petition, t^e petitioner may herself approach the respondent No.2 and the Statitin House Officer of the concerned Police Station or may take recoutse to such other remedy as may be available to her under the law. t^t this stage, in the opinion of this Court.no further orders are requir^d to be passed. The petition is therefore ^isposed of with the' iiberty as aforesaid reserved to the petitione)'. •r has filed this petition ctaimini On what basis, the poiice has and taking into consideration the ManindraMo^nSMvastava Judge [^®^fe->