)C (9 05a ”3L IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(Cr,) No.. .§u$%%of 2010 (mam Raj, S/o Late Shyam Narain‘Rai, Aged About 31 years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Lal Khadan, Police Station Torwa, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONER Versus 1f State of Chhattisgarh, through The Principal Secretary Home, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director General of Police, Chhattigarh Police, Police Head Quarter (PHQ), Raipur, Chhattisgarh RESPONDENT (S) . Inspector General of Criminal Police, Investigation Department (CID) Chhattisgarh Police, Police Head Quarter (PHQ), Raipur, Chhattigarh. P, 4. Superintendent of Police Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (5. The Officer Incharge, Torwa Police Station, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER(S): As stated above in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT{S): As stated above in the cause title. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRjT PETITION (CL) NO. 5823 OF 2010 Petitioner Vipul Rai Versus Respondents WRIT’PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF lNDlA State of Chhattisgarh & Others (SB : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present :- Shri Sameer Kujur, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ‘(Y ORDER ORAL (Passed on 03' day of December, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Crime Investigation Department (CID), Raipur, for conducting fair and impartial investigation into the crime No. 1 61 1201 0. 2. The brief facts, in nutsheii, as projected by the petitioner, is that the incident of firing and injuring to \finod Garg took place on 29.5.2010 at Laikhadan Railway Crossing, P.S. TonNa, Bilaspur. FIR was lodged and a criminal case was registered. The wife of the petitioner also lodged FIR, as counter case on 22.6.2010. No action thereafter was taken. A complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (for short “the CJM’), Bilaspur. On complaint, the CJM, Bilaspur, by order dated 22.6.2010 directed Torwa police to enquire into the matter and file enquiry report before the Court. 3. Case of the petitioner is that despite clear direction of CJM, Bilaspur, the police is not investigating the matter properly. The \ matter was listed before the Magistrate on 8.7.2010, 29.7.2010, 19.8.2010 and 24.9.2010. On every occasion, the police authorities 9W are taking time to submit report. in compliance of the order, a case under Section 458, 506; 392, 388, 34 of i.P.C. have been registered as crime No.231 11 O. However, no action is being taken. The petitioner seeks intervention at this stage, when the CJM, Bilaspur, had aiready taken cognizance of the matter and the complaint is pending consideration before the Magistrate. By this petition; petitioner seeks a direction that Criminal investigation Department (CID) may investigate the incident fairly. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Law Minister? by letter dated 18.6.2010 and the DIG by letter dated 10.7.2010 directed to the Superintendent of Police to investigate the case for offence of extortion of money also, but nothing has happened The Station House Ofhcer, Police Station Torwa, has filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner has tiled a complaint against one Raian @ Raijan Mishra and \fmod Garg before the Court of CJM, Bilaspur, under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Cr.P.C."). The petitioner has also filed an application under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C'. for calling report from the police against the above said two persons, which is also pending consideration before the CJM and the same is unregistered. The CJM had issued directions to the Police Station Torwa for submitting report. The report could not be submitted, as the petitioner and his wife did not make themselves available for recording statements. However, pursuant to order passed by this Court, the statement of wife of the petitioner namely Nirmaia Rai could be recorded on 24.11.2010. The statement of the petitioner has already been recorded earlier on 27.7.201 0. ashok 3 Shri Bhatia, learned State counsel submits that the statement C” the petitioner and his wife have been recorded so also the statements of Janki Bai Shrivas, Laxman Kaiwartya, Vikas Rat, Santosh Kumar Dhritlahre, Vikram Singh Thakur; Suresh Premani, Tunnan Rai and Digamber Singh have already been recorded, therefore, the report would be submitted to the Court of CJM, Bilaspur‘ within two-three days. Be that as it may, without going into the merit of the case, since the matter is pending consideration before the CJM, Bilaspur, on the complaint flied by the petitioner’s wife, it is a trite law that this Court wiil not interfere with the investigation at this stage, when no exceptional circumstances have been pointed out except that there is a delay in investigation of the matter. The petitioner may make appropriate application/ raised grievances before the CJM or any other competent judicial authority. This Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is of the opinion that there cannot be parallel proceedings, when there is no complaint against the CJM and secondly, if there is any grievance against the order passed by the CJM. There are other statutory, remedies avaitable under the provisions of law. ln view of foregoing, there is no merit in this case. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to‘the petitioner to take recourse to provisions of law, if so advised. Sdl- 1: Sattsh K. Agnihotrt Judge