^/71^r SlngteBench 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.t W. P. (Cr.l N0. ...33.15...../2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS /V ^ ^ ^^' / ^/'y ^<":y ,\ ^ ./' Magan Lodhi S/o Prasram Lodhi, Aged about 65 years, R/o Shardapara Camp-2 Chawni, Bhilai Tahsil & District Durg, (C.G.) VERSUS / 1. State of Chhattisgarh through: Secretary Home 85 Jail Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur C.G. 2. D.G.P. Jail P.H.Q. Raipur {C.G.} Collector, Durg, District Durg, (C.G.) Superintend of Police Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Station House officer of Durg, District Durg, {C.G.} Shekhar Singh Tigga S/o Alexandira Tigga, aged about 50 years, Jail Superintend of Central Jail Durg, C.G. .. 7. Jailer of Central Jail Durg, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IND1A FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF THE NATURE ETC. ^^'"/ ^ ^'Jf .-r' / ^ ^ ^7& ^^. HIGhLCQURT^)F CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cr.) N0.5313 OF 2011 PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS Magan Lodhi Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- 1. 2. 7. Gowri Shri R.K. Jain, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murhty, Dy. Adv. General forthe State. ORDER (Passed onthis 13th day of September, 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents No.1 to 5 to conduct fair investigation of crime No. 174/2011 registered in Police Station Durg, for commission of murder of Shravan Lodhi. After investigation, it appears that, challan has been filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg. Learned counsel submits that during the course of investigation, the documents have been forged and the police authorities have not made proper investigation. Thus, the above-stated direction may be issued to the authorities for proper investigation. On completion of investigation, if the Magistrate has taken cognizance, in that event also under the provisions of Section 173 (8) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate is empowered to direct further investigation. Thus, if there is any grievance, as set out in the petition herein, he may approach the concerned Magistrate seeking appropriate direction for further investigation, ifrequired. At this stage, it would not be expedient and proper for this Court to interfere in the matter when admittedly cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to proper statutory forum under the provisions of law, if so advised. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge