mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Petitioners Writ Petitipn fC) No. 4922 of2007 1. 2. Versus Respoiidents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Sarita Kondh, D/o Shri Puiut Kondh, aged about 33 years. Shiba Kondh, Palak Shri Punit Koadh, aged about 18 years. Petitioner No. 1 is fhe niofher of petitioner No.2, both are resident of vfflage Jagdishpur, P.S. Basaa, Dfetrict Mahasamund (C.G/ State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Hoine Deparbnent, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Superuitendent of PoUce, Matiasainund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Officer-in-Charge, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Sainpat Agrawal, S/o Jagdish Agrawal, aged about 50 years, R/o Basna, District Mahasataund (C.G.) Officer In-Charge of Special Police Station of Scheduled Caste aad Scheduled Tribe, Mahasamund (C.G.) Of&cer Inchai^e of PoUceStation Balco, Distt. Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDJER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri J. K. Shastri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3, 5 aud 6. Shri Ramakant Paadey, Advocate for fhe respondent No.4. OftJD E^ R (Passed on this 1st Day of May, 2009) 1. By fiting this petition, the petitioners seek for foUowing directions : "7.2 That, the Hon'blc Court further be pleased to direct the respondent no.l to 3 &5 to reuivestigate the matter taking DNA test of relevant persons after registration of First Information Report wifh a direction to adduce fhe report before this HonTile Court on which the Hon'ble Court may take action or toenquuy the matter by some independent ^ency, ifrequired. 7.3 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 to puuisb tbe liable pubUc einployees aad to grant sufficieat compensation to the aggrieved party for her unnecessaiy harassiaent providing better facilities to the petitioners as per law. ^- :»-; '~^>. •^-- A' •^•"c^~i- s\^- Tbalcm The facts, ia nutsheU, as projected by fhe petitioners, are fhat the petitioner No.l is fhe mottier of the petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.2 was bom. on. 5.2.1988 on account ofaUeged rape conuiiitted by titie respondent No.4. The petitioner has ffled a coiuplairit aad fhereafter reininders were sent but ao steps were taken tiU date. As such, the petitioners pra;r for tiie above stated reliefs. Per contra, Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, learued Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing for fhe respondents/State submits that no coinplamt has been inade by fhe petitioner No.l, till date. Now fhe petitioner No.2 has attamed inajority and as such, if the petitioners are claimiug aay relief against the respondent No.4, tiiey iriay approach the Civit Court for appropriate relief. Shri Ramakant Paadey, leamed couusel appeaiing for the respondent No.4 submits that the date of alfcged incident is 5.3.1988 aud the petitioner No.2 was bom on 5.2.1988, as such. fhe petitioner No.2 carmot be a ctuSd ofthe respondent No.4. Be that as it laay, siace it is aa old case, now ttie pctitioners cau claim. declaration, if so advised, by takiag recourse to a jurisdictional coiapetent civil Court by leadiug evidence aud exaoiiaation of ofher relevaut docuiuents. Since the question iavolves an enquuy, this Court has no wherewifhal to deal wifh sucb a case, as this Court can decide the case only on aflBdavits, not by exaoaiuation of witnesses or calling of other aaaterial, which is not possible ia exercise of writ jzirisdiction by this Court, Thus, fbis petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to fhe petitioneis to take recourse to the altemative competent foruxa, ifso advised under provisions oflaw for appropriate reUef, No order asto costs. TIiis Cozu-t has not touched fhe nierita of the case and is not recordiag auy findiag in respect to the dispute involved in this petition. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge -~.^-)