^onh IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition N0. /2003 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ '•^••' ^'^^' w :1 7, Ramratan Sahu, aged about 52 Years, S/o.Jairam Sahu, OccupationAgriculturist, R/o Village Bodra, P.S, Gurur, Distt. Durg (C.G) VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Departraent ofHome D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) Senior Superintended of Police Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) Station House Officer, P.S. Gurur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Station House Officer, P.S. City Kotwali, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Khilanand Aged about 33 Yrs. S/o Grrdhari, Smt. CharaeU bai, aged 30 Yrs. W/o Khilanand // 2 // 8. Srat. Surajbai Aged 52 Years, W/o Girdhari No. 6 to 8 are R/oVill.Bodra, P.S, Gurur, Distt. Durg (C.G) WRITPETITIONJJ/A 22^/22^0FTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i^s^fl ri XI-HC-22 ^ 's^ -^WM^, ^ws, f^roy .^.;5:>.;.S.^.(.Z anasi^i '^iwsn^i sbi-li* ^iffg 3n^?I<nwtfe ^N?fq)^ 'TORff ^ fe;St Ti^E51'< ^; arPgq aflt^T 19.01.2004 5hri D.N. Prdyayati, counsel for" tl^e petltloner. Shri Praveen Das, Pmiel Lauiyer fojr the Stote/respondents 1 to 5. Heard both the counswt. The rooin grievonee of the petit| |wmely, Mukesh Kumar wos assauh'ed by ioner in this petitton is that his son •espondents 6 to 8 with Lathi A Hasiya |md on account of the iryuries received fl>y Mukedi Kumar, he wos (rimitted to |the Sovernment Hospital, bhonitari, ujhere he succumbed to the iryuries sustained by him. The petitioncr lodgec) o complaint before respondent No.4 |and respondent No.4 had not token any <4tion. Respondent Ne.4 registered the ^ase against the deceased instead of re^isterirg the ease against respondents ^ to 8. The petitioner mode severul complaints, but respondent hto.3 had 9iven f/m enquiry report stoting thut the ct®oth of the deceased wos due to ^onsumption of poison <md there ia no ne4d for furt+ier iwesti9tri-!on ond elosed ^he cose. The petitioner made o compl investigotion. Eyewitnesses urere also ^ffidavit,tout no action is being taken. Having heard the leamed counsel jamt to respondent No.3 for further summoned and they have filed the f®rthe ptrties and having regard to ie faets and circumsteaicea of the cfase, -the petitioner has got cqually, ^fficacious remedy owailAle to him. Jnvesti9ation of the Police he is withm hijs ri9ht to file a complaint before the ^ompetent authority under Section 200 c(f the Cr.P.C. ond the competent Court jw»ei'ther himalf enquire into the comploint as per the provisions of Section ?00 of the Cr.P.C. cnd if •the concerned (Pourt thinks fit con send the case for ^z^ If he is not satisfied with tte ) IE.S );ite Soma ^ T<TR'f^'q', »^i'raTre,'isjMiyy: wp-inTgOTieS '3KT 3"i1 ^ L/'rJ*S^ "I —L--;'<1?' 'STi^Tl' ~t^^ (°<^T^^T. ^T"n?!?H'l 'RT^T^TT 's TS^T r[^T3T'C ^3ifiTq3'lt¥( re9istrat-ion tmd investigation -^o the concemed Police Statton under Seetion 136 (3) of the Cr.P.C. In vewof the above circumstances, since equol efficacious remedy is avaitable to the petitioner'the petitioner can qiproach the appropriate Forum. j With the above observafions •the petition stands disposed of. In view of this order, |w.(W.)P.No.3149/2003 and I.A.No.9978/2003 also stond disposed of. L.C: SdA 'ge iial^^^:^-' li!i?SI )atfd