Single Bench ?.»• p» :T"1^^" sw.r'^r"^. Sli.^-*-^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 Cr.M.P. No. ^32-/201l (Arising out of CR.M.P. No.612/2007 disposed of on 17.10.2011) PETITIONERS 1. Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o- Shri Hiralal Sharma, aged about 38 years, at present ' working as Wing Commander in the Indian Air Force, posted at Rojpari, New Delhi-38. 2. Hiralal Sharma S/o- late Jhabarmal Sharma, aged about 61 years, 3. Mahabir Prasad Sharma S/o- iate Jhabarmal Sharma, aged about 58 years, 4. Smt. Hemlata Sharma w/o- Hiralal Sharma, aged about 56 years, All R/o- in Lumtibahal, Brijrajnagar, District- Jharsuguda (Orissa) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of C.G. Through the Director General of Police, raipur (C.G.) 2. TheSuperintendentofPolice, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.), - ^' 3. The StationHouse Officer, Police Station Bhilai Nagar; District- Durg (C.G.) EBfe-' ^ 4. Shashi Bushan Sharma S/o- R.P. Sharma, ag'ed about 35 years, R/o- P.W.D., 08 Sector- 6, Bhilai Na'gar, P.5.- Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ^f' JLJLO&^2-_L- AN APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATIONt)F ORDER DATED 17.10.20U.PASSED IN CR.M.P. N0. 612/2007 OR RE-^HEARING OF THE CASE. 32^'- —78 TST •^w'i",, ®Tily'li«,'f^fcTray (Vy(v^^|o . t^-& , STf^I ^I Ri-fi'* ^sn 3?i^r sfi^r^ 311^1 •'PR; (Tjqf^^q) TCnwflfc^T air^i SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra Wiohsln Shrivastava, J. 17-11-2011 l nis petition unaer aection moairication of tne oraer passea ^!<tf^^1l 'RRcTt' '£f'fe^ ^-i^R' ^affin sii^i Shri B.C.Sahu, counsei for ttie petitioner. Shri Sudhir Bajpai, Deputy qovernment Advocate for the State. 482 CrPC has been riled bv the petitioner for on 17/10/2011 in CrMP No.612/07 or in the aiternatlve for hearing of the caste on the submission that after the case was reserved ror judgment, me cnarg^ Court. Therefore, the directions wil proper investiganon to ensure !(] sheet nas Deen niea DV tne po!ice berore me icn was issuea by tne coun ror noiaina la'r and gica! conciusion or tne investiganon witnout unnecessary delay, is required to |?e modified. The other submission of iearned counsei for the Detitioner is that the obsen/ations made bv this Court that there was no interim order passed by thfs Court also requires reconsideration as in the vvrit petition which was eariier fil^d, there was a protective umbrelia by way of interim order that the petitioner shai Taking into consideration could be deiivered in the present sheet, the airection to that erfect is| II not be arrested without the leave ofthe Court. Ihe first submission that before the judgment lcase, ths police has alreadv submitted charae accordinglv modified. it is now clarified that as As far as the second submf observations made by this Court .the charge sheet has already be^n fiied, it is not necessary to the concerned sation Mouse unicer to proceea apy funner in tne matter. ssion is concernea, rt nas Deen ciamiea in ine Ithat there was no interim order in the present proceeaings wnicn means that tn^re was no interim order passeo in the present The petition is accordinglv fihallv disDosed off. afta" 3u^e swliMas,ta"a [*""• A,