niff} IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION N0.r^ o /2010 PETITIONERS: 1 ^^••> ^ ..-:'?^ ^^ 2- ..^'^^.^••\ ...-r:^•^^' .0 \v^ ^ -vv _ e'1k ^" ^' RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 4. I/CYZ' Smt. Krishna Devi Sharma, Wd/o Late Ram Sharan Sharma, Aged about - 82 years. Ram Manohar Sharma, S/o Late Ram Sharan Sharma. Both are residents of - C/o - Shri Raja Sharma, Devnandan Nagar Phase II, Infront of Vishal Tailors, Baima Road, Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Department of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, Beside Sub Registry Office, Bilaspur Shri Jayant Thorat, Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur (CG) Shri Bonifas Ekka, Aged about - 45 years, Inspector, Police Station - Seepat, Bilaspur (CG) Shri Pratap Thakur, Aged about - 40 years, A.S.I. Police Station - Seepat, Bilaspur (C.G.) Shri V.K. Mishra, D.S.P. Crime Bilaspur (CG) Branch, PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE '^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRAMOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. PETITIONERS RESPONDNTS Cr.Mj' No.760/2010 Smt. Krishna Devi Sharma 6s another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Application under Section 482 ofCr.P.C.) Appearance: Shri Goutam Bhaduri, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Ashish Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 9.11.2010) Heard on admission. 2. By this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the pedtioners have prayed for issuance of direction to carry out further investigation in respect of Crime No. 171/10, registered by Police Station -Seepat, by any officer other than respondents No. 4, 5 8s 6. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that though the offence has been registered and it being a case of brutal murder of husband of petidoner No.l, the investigation is not being properly carried out. Learned counsel further submitted that soon after the incident, the investigating agency did not take proper care to collect incriminating \ evidence, particularly the available incriminating evidence indicated by A:^^,^ y:..^\ t>.> *te.,-.«<r^' '". --<i?i" -2- I? the movement of dog. He further submits that the manner in which the deceased has been murdered shows involvement of more than one person, but so far, the police has only arrested one accused. His further submission is that till date, the weapon alleged to be used for comrnission of offence has not been recovered and the evidence is being allowed to vanish. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that soon after the incident, the police of Police Station - Seepat had taken action and after registering crinie, the matter is under investigation. He further submits that looking to the gravity of offence, the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur has deputed the senior police officer- respondent No.6 to carry out investigation in the matter and all attempts are being made to collect the incriininating evidence and the investigation is still not coraplete. 5. From the averments made in the petition, it appears that the main grievance of the pedtioners is that while making investigation, the investigadng officers are not making fair and proper investigation. Frora the reply of respondents No. 1 & 2, I find that the matter is still under investigation and at this stage when the matter is under investigation and particularly when a person has already been arrested, this Court cannot issue any direction to carry out invesdgation in a particular manner or in a particular direction. It is expected from the investigating agency that it would act diligently, promptly and fairly in making investigation into alleged commission of offence, wherein the husband of the petitioner No. 1 has been brutally killed. £1'\.... ^ ^';S«Si"a'w-s 9 <&y^ Praveen -3- 6. Learned counsel for the State stated that the senior police officer particularly respondents No. 2 8s 3 have also taken the inatter seriously and a senior police official of the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police has been made in-charge of the investigation. Learned counsel for the State assures the Court that the matter would be investigated by the State official with utmost promptness, fairness and diligence. 7. The petidoners would be at liberty to submit before the respondents No. 2 85 3 their grievance with regard to investigation, who would look into the matter and if necessary, take necessaiy steps. Respondent No.6, who has been investigating the matter, would undertake the investigation with utmost promptness and fairness. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge