BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH IN THE MATTER OF Cr.M.P.No / 2010 Ap^licantg- ^l^y S?";'.'<fe:.;?:'p.^ ;.*' \^- S* \'<<.A*j ....^".^^ 1..^"^^ s!yw ^6"'*..-•' '^•" s^ v ^- -V ^f i^A vs. Satya Prakash S/0 Late Krishna Chandra Verma aged aboyt 55 vears occypation Assistant Labour Commissioner, GoYernnient of CG, ResidentofB/367. Central Avenye Sinriti Nagar, Bhilai-490020. Non-Applicant 1 .State of CG through Superitendent of Police Durg. 2.3tation House Officer, Police Station Supela, BhUai CRIMINAL MISCILLANEOUS PETITION U/S 482 Cr.P.C May it please your Honour i-HC—78 sn^v ^i Ri-)]<*i 'cfSH 3TI^T gi^iq^ •<•°:; "4i<<ici<i, yaly'Kc, Fs)(r!iyy. ..&.M,.?...^.^^^ wif?piN •WRfr •?fs^t tfSre^R ^siRpisn^i 1 Mtanindra Moha* Shrivarfava. J. SB : Hon'bte Shri 1 22-1(^2010 Shri Pradeep Saxena, couns^l for the applieant. ShriSatish Gupta, Govt. Advijxsate for the State. Heard. This is a petition underSe4tion 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applioant for issuance of a directioiji to the Station House Officer, Potfce Statton Supela, Bhilai to immediate|y regi^er F.1. R. against the accused persons and proceed with the inveslfgation in accordance with taw. From a perusal of the facts c(sclosed in the petitfon, it is found that a report was lodged by the applicar|t, but the same was not registered. A complairt has also been filed befofe the Judteial Magistrate First Class, Durg. Thereafter, the Magistrate ^ide its order dated 22-06-2010 has called for a report from the concern^d Poltee Statton. Leamed oounsel for the Magistrate has called for a report Station House OfRcer of the said F.1. R. till date. Leamed counsel fo Magistrate has palled Tor a report, 4? Polfce Statton hj& required to regi the Supreme Court in the case o< OOiers, 2008 (7) SCC 164 and Delhi) and Othws, p006) 2 SCC (j77 a|)pticant submits that even after the ftom the concemed Polme Station, the police Station has not registered any the applicant submits that once the the Statbn 1-touse Officer of concemed li^ter F.1. R. He relles upon the order of Lalfta Ktmwl va. Govt <rf U.P.S Kumari Vwsus State (WCT of RdtncsA XI-HC—78 "ysr "fi<<i<n-4, ©Tily'ie,fs(di'yl^< sn^T'ipra' ('yfg^i^; ^^ sn^ si*ii<^ ^RIIWBfta Sil^i sftl^^^m '^R^ff ^f fe^st <^!^R ^aiRmsn^r Tum8B» Reply has been fited by the r^spondent tate, in whieh, it has been stated on afRdavit that the Police has already sent its report to the Magistrate in compliance of order de(ed 22-06-2010. Whether it is a case for regi^tration of crime against the aocused persons on the complaint of the a(j the concemed Police Statton. The f] pltoant, the matter is required to be considered by the concemed Magisjtrate upon receipt of the report from etitioner would be at liberty to move the concerned Court where complai(it is flled. The concerned Court shall pass appropriate orcters on the apppcant's complaint in aocordance with the law as ateo the order passed bjy the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) & Ramesh Ki(mari (supra). With the aforesaid observ^tion, the revisian petitfon stands disposed of. — Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge