IN THE HON*BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P.z^ OF2010(S.B.) PETITIONER APPLICANT '— RESPONDBNTS :01) ^y^. .'<l:^\^.. \./;-:"^.:->>^'*' '^^" :02) :03) :04) :05) :06) 07) :08) Mamta Dadhsena W/o. Ashwani Kumar, aged 38 years, R/o. Aniarpuri Chowk, Sundernagar, Raipur (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Home Department, (Secretariat) D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) Superintendent of Police, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Station House Officer, Police Station Utai, District Durg(C.G.) Yoovraj Singh Bisen, S/d. non known, Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Utai, Distt.Durg (CG.) Mohit, S/o. Chhablal, aged about 26 years, Janirav, Police Station Patan, District Durg (C.G.) Vishnu Netam, S/o. Mehattar Netam, aged about ^0 years, R/o. Village Aineri, Police Station Bhilai-3, District Durg (C.G.) Khorbahra, S/o. Sakharam, aged about 50, R/o. Village Jamrav, Police Station Patan, District Durg (C.G.) Kanhaiyya Verma, aged Bhunu r: h T ^^. ^•ai.^^'m ,^,:.^- ^^y :09) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) Verma, aged about 50 years, R/o. Village Panhdor, Police Station Utai, District Durg (C.G.), Omprakash Agrawal, S/o. Nandlal, aged about 50 years, R/o. Village Jamrav, Police Station & Tahsil Patan, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Rameshar, S/o. Tijaoo aged about 43 years, R/o. Jamranw, Police Station and Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) Chhablal, S/o. Budhiyar, aged about 56 years, R/o. Village Jararav, Police Station and Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) Mahnguram, S/o. Bhutnath, aged ^B about (^Q^'years, R/o. Village Janirav, Police Station and Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) Sardar Shabbir Khan S/o. Mohd. Bashir Khan, aged about 40 years, R/o. Village Dhundhava, Post Auri, Police Station Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Yashwant Chandrakar, son of Shatrughan Chandrakar, aged about 40 years, R/o. Loharsingh, Police Station Patan, District Durg (C.G.) And others (if any) RespondentS to 15 are Non-applicants 1 to 11 PETITIQN U^DER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 *11<101 ^*TT^ ^csr^qiznwT, ty^*l^t<io, Rowyx ^Cy.M.^:..^M2-.o!0. ^20 31T^5TqiT R»ljcb ?CT3n^5Tfl>*li<n 3TT^9T IRZF (<3?t3^) B^rarw^^tf^T 3n^r S,8.: HON'BLE JUSTICE N 08-05-2010: Shri Abhav Tjwan, coi| Shri Pankaj Shrjvasts^ Present De?;tion wij'l .246/2010. 284/2010, 289/2Q !n Cr.^.P. Nos.. 2841 praysr has bsen mace to r| counsei for fie petltionsrs rev'ew In tne Cocle D? Cr'mlrj rellef bu? in the lar'aer Inter'] the respondents to act !n ac] aiso declded along with the IP a'l tlese petitions, hsve •f];ec separate app!ic| Class; Pats-)^ D'stnct Durg| Cnmsnsl P"co8cure for r$ respondents for th8 cf?ence( 471 ..406.^.09 snd 120-B/34 dt'tne indssn Penai Code €pi<iio<nTi+ii+icoTiffc^i ^^ix ^oiRl+l3IT^ST R, PRITSNKER OJWAKER. nsei for e ostitioners; d, r'ciHc^ .^^ ^^^ ^^^ o^^?.- ^ iu\ iuc Oi.d^.'c Gcvern tne disposai ot C;',^.P- Ncs. 'iOand 290/201 Oasso. ^010, 289/2010 8- 290/2000 tnough ?ne scail ?he order dated 932010; nowever, su&mits tnat as there !s no provisson for a' Procedure, he is not Dresssna the same ?st of just;ce, cs-H''€ction may be 'ssued to ^ordance with 'av^ snd these oetitions be ^th&r petj^ons. grievsnce of ?ne petltione's is that tney ^tions before judicial IVsgistrste, First unde' Sectson 156 (3) ot' t?ie C-ode of Igistration of the o'fence agamst ttis ^ uncer Sec.tions 419, .420,, ^67,^68,469, xi-y ^5tT;^ITOl^T, tP-^l<«<l<s,Rrtl^y ^&: *l I*ICTI ^TT^ 31T^5T xra^5 (lq^cl<s) W^20 sn^^rwRiicp ?T2TT3fTct?T9Rra» B^ITW ^Tfl^T 3I!^T -2-- €pi<<Io4l<i+ii<iwl'^ffc^3 <<Ri^i1< ^ 3<R|*1311^51 According to the petit) tearned Magistrate on B.2.\ investlgate the matter but tlll dcne nor the F.i.R. has bee;1 oners, dlrections were 'ssued bv the ?010 and 5.3.2010 to tns polsce to date nelther the Investiciatlon tias been has aiso t>een prayed by th^ respondents No, 1 & 2 may b| enqu'ry against the respond) petitloners havs a!so.made| cfficers regarding demand of Pursua.nt to th° d'rectl Counse! has filec an afficavit been speclficai'y denied by t^\ ot' tlme any bri.be amount wa^ stated that prior to lodging ol cases, respondents namsiy Rajendra Mehar flied sn apj Code of Crlmingj Procedur registered agafnst the respontients, It petitioners !H all the petitions tngf the ^ d'srected for initlatlng the ciepartmentai ^nts No. 3 & 4. !n thelr petittons, the [cerlaln aSlegations egalnst the poilce lt)ribe for realstratlon of the F.i.R. on given by thls Court, iearned State )f the investigatlng officer In which it has e investigating Offlcer that at any point demanded by him. it has been further the report by the petitloners In ail the |Roop Ram Vsrma, Banau Gond and ^jication undsr Section 156 (3) of the befcre the iearned Maalstrate on 1.12.2009. Entertainsng the s|id applicatjon on 4.12.2009 directlons XI-H y-oq "qiqi««,yTi1<H<l<A, RlriKl^ ^l TFT^T^TT^ 3[T^?T95TRT1W ^raT3ff^5T9Rra? Ff ' ' gn^9TiR^(4di^6i<Ei) W120 B;RTTWr^rf^T 311^51 -3 were issued by the learned submlt the fina! report. it has that baseci on this directton < the F.1.R. was registered ags and the matter is under inve by the State counse! that oou fiied sppllcatlons under Sectl on 8.2.20'Oand 28.2.2010a the onty directicn which v/as was to investigate the matter. State counse! submlts 8.2.2010 on the comp!aint of\ Dujaribai and Santosh, inve^ submitted on 23.2.2010 befdre was not accepted because t| not recorded and were not submitted that these statem^ complainants were not trace^ cpi<i[«<flri*ii+ioV^ffc^l xRi^i^ ^3lf^RT3II^T |Magistrate to register the offence and been contended by the State CounseS ^fthe Ssarned Maglstrate, on 5.12.2009, |tnst the petltloners in all the five c-ases ^tigstion. It has further been contended |d be as a counter b!ast, petltionsrs have |3n 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Maglstrate hd while entertsining these applications, ssued to the Statlon House Offlcer, Utai that pursuant to the direction issued on pstltioners Daneshwar Prasad Sharma, stlgatlon was done and the report was the iearned Maglstrate but the same statements ot' the compiainants were attached \wlth the report. !t has been •nts could not be recorded because the ibje. State counse! subm'ts that this fact 1'he XI- ^ET^TTOTc^T, tP^WKo, Romyx WI^T^TT^ 3TT^?T CRPP (y^3qcs) ^F^20 3TI^?T^TRF[ra> ?CTT3IT^?Tw+iicp ?^cITWF^rf^T 3IT^5T '4- was aiso mentioned in the| bearing No. 997/2010. He su^ these three compiainants r| Duiaribai and Santosh are i submitted before the Compet^ petitioners namely Ashwanl K^ it has been argued by the was issued by the Maglstrat^ 8.3.2010and1.5.2010,the Rojnamcha Sanha dated 23.3.2010 Imits that as soon as the statements of (lameiy Daneshwar Prasad Sharma, }ecorded, the report would be agaln (nt Court. !n respect of the complsint of ^mar Dadhsena and Mamta Dadhsena, SNe counsel that on 5,3.2010 dlrection of these petitioners but as th|i couid not be recorded an^ investlgated. LookiRg to this, <^ to these petitioners under ^ Procedure, to be ssrved they are not turning up and t^ these petitjoners are not In may be issued to them dlrectlj on the basls of compia'nt cpi<iio<n<i <ii<ioT^ffc^l xRn^i^ ^? 3lRl<l W^ff efftsrts to investsgate the matter. !n between were made to record the statemsnt ey are not traceabie, thelr stafements the matter could not be further tn 7.,4.2010 summons were a!so Issued lectlon 160 of the Code of Crimlnal throi-feh their !oca! advocates but even then thfe concerned Advocate hss repiied that tojjch wjth hlm and, therefore, the same ?. State counsel further submits that as 3f. Roop Ram Verma,. Bsnau Gond /y'e^^ I ^^ XI-H6-78Jr ^/ "•-S%CT ^scT^ipn^T, v^lwKe, R«wy<< *l I*ICTI SFTT^ ^STwf^Tra? ^irOT^^Tw+iicp snt^r q^F (x3?fg«R[) W^20 s^TTW^f^Tan^T and Rajendra Mehar, case petitioners, they are avoiding be because of thelr apprehei police. However, unless th authoritles and submit a!! the the police to submit the compliance of the order date^ ! have heard counsei avaitable on record. 1 find no force in the tn the case in hand, tl| tearned Magistrate to the p| pursuant to that, sincere ef\ investigate the matter. If the| they are obllge to foilow !egs| cpi<ilw<flri *ii+ioT:fffc^t xRi^i^ ^3iR|+i3n^ST has been registered against ali the their appearance before the Pojice, may ^sion that they msght be arrested by the e petitioners come before tne pollce documents before them, It is diffscuit for report before iearned Magistrate in S 8.2.2010and 5,3.2010. :or the parties and perused tne materi?' rgument of the petltloners thst once the laoistrate to investlQate the matter then directions is issued by tle ^ the poiice js bound to regisljer ^he offence and without the same no investiciation can be done e oniy direction which wss glven by the 5lice was to investigate the matter and ;orts have been msde by the pollce to petitioners are interested to get just'ce, procedure, it is now for the petitioners to vjiri T<II<IIO«,t9TH<«<i<»,Romyx ^ 'TFRCT^TT^ 3IT^9T q3^ (*^qi^6|<g) W120 3n^T^?T Rticp ?raT3ri^5T9Rra g^arsR ;(ri^?T 3i!^ST co-operate with the police. relevant documents before themselves for recording th| police to investigate the ma^ Under Section 156(1 learned Magistrate is fully j investigation of the matter police authoritjes to im investigation the po!ice been committed by any o under the law would follow. At this stage, it has | that the petstioners are w\\\pg will make themselves av^ would a!so produce all t^ petitioners will present t^ 15 days from the receipt o1j relevantdocuments. <pi<i[w<nTi 4ii+ioT^T"fc^rl xRit5;i<< ^3lf^T 311^91 If the petitloners do not produce al! the he poiice authorities and wili not present *ir statements, it would be difficult for the er. [^) of the Code of CriminaJ Procedure, Istified h issuing direction to the police for ^nd it is not incumbent on ttie part of the im|nediately register the F.!.R. If sfter corhe to the conclus'on that the offence has the respondents, the action ss rsquired been argueci on behalf of the petltloners to co-operate In the investigation, they iiable before the police authoritles and e relevant ciocuments. He submits that herfiselves before the police authorities wlthln copy of this order and wi!! produce ali the ^ 1 ;-783U \jw| ^iqirt-q, tPTTl<<1<l<»,ROI^^X "^~ *1Hrtl^TT^ 3n^$Tiraq?(4di<i<si<El) ^20 3IT^ST^T R'li<b ^TT3n^5Tw+licp Elll D/- B^arw?^rf^r 3i?^5T ^ Be that as it may, it is u^ they want to co-operate in th^ appear before the Investigati^g recorded and investigating officer accordance with !aw. cpi<i[o<n<i «ii*ioi'^'fc^ixRi^i^ ^ <nRl*i 3n^?T to petitioners to decide as to whether investigation or not. If the petitloners Officer, their statements wouid be will proceed with the case in W'rth the above observat|ons, the petitlons stand dlsposed of. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge