'^S-Si^^^e^-^f; ?? • ^K^^S^^^ SingleBench INTHEHON'BLEmGHCOURTOFCHHATTlSGARHATBILASPURC.G. 'i^ APPLICANT PM. »B..........^-y-:j7"-^ pfesOTSstfbySt!riR"^-;.^¥" ,::x.:.^F-1.' NON-APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Cr.M.P.No.'+^ Smt. Hiramani /II W/o Amarjit R/o Gram Mahora, P.S. Patna, Tah. Baikunthpur Distt. Koriya, C.G. Smt. Nisha Mishra Ex officio Distt. Woman & Child Development Officer, Baikunthpur,Distt.Koriya, C.G. Smt. Prabha Lakda Project Officer, Woman & ChildDevelopmentProjecf, Baikunthpur, Distt- Koriya C.G. Smt. Elijabeth Toppo Supervisor, Woman& Child Development Projeet, Baikunthpur, Distt- Koriya C.G. V.K. Rathaur ChiefExecutive Officer JanpadPanchayat Baikunthpur Distt-. Koriya, G.G. ' Smt. Sumitra Jaiswal W/o Mitfhulal Jaiswal Anganbadiworker- Anganbadi Center Navapara, Village- Mahora, P.S.Patna, Distt. Koriya, C.G. APPLIGATIQN U^ fi2^^CRIMINAL PROCEDURE GOfiE -7£("^Tqi^T, •^•Wg', f^iray ^'r-.^.tr^'^-T-^/i] 'T' W (•q?^'^'';) sa^T'wfei^ wn <s<A;nwiR; -7 ^RnwHfts sii^n 'SBTBon'bleSfiiTManinBra'Moliail 04-11.2011 Shri Raj Kumar Gupta along ^ith Smt, Krishna Gupta, counsel for the applicant. Heard. This petition under Section 4|S2 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by order d^ited 25-02-2011 passed in Criminal lorder dated 11-02-2010 dismissing Revision No.13 of 2010, by which, the complaint, has been affirmed. Learned counsel for the appli^ have committed illegality in dismissi(ig the complaint by wrongly holding that no cognizance could be takel respondents No.1 to 4 without valid 197of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted ttfl involved in the process of selectionj not eligible for being appointed application was considered and she' and given appointment, whereas candidate. It is further submitted th^t in view of the allegations against the respondents No.1 to 4, no pr Cr.P.C. is available, as what has be^n done, is a criminal act hatched in a conspiracy, whereby the docijments attached along with the application of the petitioner, were r| selection committee, on account ofl appointed. Therefore, in such kind EOTfW^f •qpraf^ fS<a ?s'II?i~< ^s a'fiFi sn^i Shrivastava, J. fcant submitted that the Court below 1 for the alleged offences against panction, as requiredunder Section lat the respondents No.1 to 4 were ;even though, respondent No.5 was as Aanganbadi Worker, yet her <i>was held eligible and most suitable the petitioner was more suitable Wection under Section 197 of the pmoved and not placed before the which, the petitioner could not be |of cases of criminal conspiracy to mtran^*t swrosr, ir'a'iRiiig—ys/140—2/2011—l ,so,ooo. «,,-^^^ ^ ;F£T^ffin^R, 'sTTi^r®,tsf^irey ai^qg'R;^^ wns^'irwiite ^•^•^'^£SV. :&.{• s( 'w^) -\^ ^rafenh 'aF??ii •S? feca' •rf^CTii: i; s^i sii^i From the orders passed by th^ Couri: below, it is revealed that the respondents No.1 to 4 were involf Aanganbadi Worker in their capacityl No.5 was held to be most suitabl^ and she was given appointment, against which, remedy of appeal competent authority. The complaint .'s*>Tl''?T .,..-.. ...... . . .,- .....'•siA ^ ^ed in the process of selection of as public servants. The respondent has also been taken before the ^ based on the averment that in the process pf se!.lectioh,.some.(locumetits, which were attached along with SaWKi ""ffl.l'Kf WS'J 1 ' . . the applicatifta forrg^sggg removed py the respondents No.1 to 4 under » .a Grjcgi.nal conspu;aGy,fQi&xtend undu|e benefit to the respondent No.5. The;t!eSpOriyeOtStN6.1 to 5j dealt with the application of the petitioner being invb ed'i8 the pifocess of selection in their official capadty and loC 6n^rSa§dffibrthe ol|her, the respondent No.5 was found more suitable leading to her appoihtment and the petitioner was not e;:sp • »"selected, and therefore, the responc|ents No.1 to 4 are alleged to have ^*P ^^iO;^..^,"- -;:•••- cbmmitEedoffences, while acting in c|ischarge oftheir official duties. In that view of the matter, s^nction would be necessary before cognizance could be taken. The viet/ taken by the learned Court below (;- does not appear to be perverse or so outrageous as to warrant Iriterf^rehce bythiscourK' ";::" ,^ Accoi-dii^Jy.^ffle peffiiSirbeinj) devoid of merit and is accordingly •r"" .. „..;-.... *>?;,; dismissed, 3-*a-'fe®'i6'i "»s'ay!. !- f*"; .W^-j.p-. i Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge !ire-«tii^*igsmeBT,(wftina—ys/140—2/2011—1,50,000. b~=5