HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH APPELLANT (Petitioner) Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Aopeal No.123/2008 Ganesh Ram Dhruv, Aged about 46 years, S/o Sri Kunwar Singh. R/o Chandiyabhata (Dongrigarh) P.S. Lormi, Distt. Bitaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, Deptt. of Home Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Rajpur 2. The Collector, Distt. Bilaspur 3. The Superintendent of Police, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Incharge of Police Statlon, Police Station Lormi, Distt. BJlaspur (C.G.) Appeal U/S 2 (11 ofthe ChhattSsaarh Hiah Court (Aopeal to Division BenchiAct. 2006 Present: ShriR.S. Baghel, learned counselfor the appellant. Shri J.K. GHda, learned Additional Advocate G^ieral for the State/respondents. JUDGMENT (25th June, 2008) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ.: Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admfesjon. <^ 2. Appellant - Ganesh Ram Dhruv has filed this writ appeai against the impugned order dated 20-02-2008, passed in W.P. No.2424/2006. 3. Appellant - Ganesh Ram Dhruv filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: "7.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus, suitabte direction/directions, order/orders to the respondents (Prosecution agency) regarding the investjgation of the murder case in relation to the petitioner's sister. 7.2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or suitabte direction regardlng the investigation the case from other prosecution agencies. 7.3. This Hon'bte Court may kindly be pleased to allow the compensation to the petttioner, against inaction oftheprosecution agency. 7.4 Any other reiief which the Hon'ble Court deems frt and proper also be granted to the petitioner." 4. The appellant/petitioner, thus, was seeking a direction to the respondents in regard to investjgation of the case relating to alleged murder of the petitioner's sister. 5. Learned Single Judge finding that the statements of as many as 17 witnesses were already recorded by the Investigating Agency, did not find any case for issuance of the Glirections sought by the petitioner jn view of the recent dtotum of the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & others, /^\ y £' .. t 1 ^11 1 ^^ .^s reported in 2008 AIR SCW - 309, dismissed the writ petition with the liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure before the conceming Magistrate. 6. Shri R.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Singte Judge has erred in dismissing the appellant's writ petition. 7. The appellant/petitioner lodged the First Information Report about the commission of murder of his sister on 18-06-2^)5. Leamed counsel for the appellant, during the course of hearing, admitted that there was no eye-witness to the alleged commission of murder of petitioner's sister and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence alone. The investigatton on the petitioner's report is still pending and the statements of large number of witnesses have been recorded by ie Investigating Agency. If the appellant/petitioner is not satisfied with the progress in the investigation, the appellant's remedy Bes in fidnga criminal complaint before the competent Court. 8. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, which is perfectly in line with the dtetum of the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & others (supra). 9. The wrft appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and Is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge '^ ^'