HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PBTITION (Cr.) No. 4060 OF 2009 PBTITIPNBR RB8PONDBNT8 Vs. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Rajendra Smgh Chadda, son of late Guniditya Siagh, aged 71 years, rcsident of Nanak Niwas, Dharampura Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough fhe Secrctary, Miaistry of Honie, D.K.S, Bhawaa, Maatmlaya, Raipur. State of Madhya Pradesh, fhrough fhe Secretaiy, Miaistry of Home, Vallabh Bhawaa, Bhopal (M.P.) The Inspector General of PoUce, Indore (M.P.) The Superintendent of PoUce, Distdct Dhar (M.P). Pratap Siagh Dhaliwal, aged about 54 years, son of not known to fhe petltioner. Resident of PoUce Traiamg &;hool, Near Daily CoUege, Indore (MP). Smt, Jasbir Kaur, daughter of Shri Gurbachaa Singh Greval, resident of Tailor Mohalla, Guiia Caat. District Gima (MP) & Police Trainmg School, Near Dafly CoUege, Indore (MP). WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTITUTIOM OP INDIAN. (SB :Hon*ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Presenfc- Shri B.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, G.A. for fhe State. ORAL- ORDBR (Passed on 17/09/2009) 1, This is a petition under Article 226 offhe Constitution of iBdiaa for suitable direction of fhe Officers of State of Chhattisgarh and State of Madhya Pradesh execution of the warrant of arrcst agamst the respondents No, 5 & 6 issued by tbie Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur in crmunal complaints case No. 2016/08 and 278/08. The grievaaces of fhe petitioner is tiiat respondent No. 5 is a ^- l^ PoUce Officer aad respondent No, 6 is a sister m law of the poUce Officer, respondent No. 5 is posted at Indore and maiiy warrants have been issued against fhe respondents No. 5 & 6 but poUce ofScer failed to serve tiie warrant on fhe rcspondents No, 5 & 6 and tiiey have violated fhe direction of fhe Court below. On the other haad, leanied counsel for fhe State opposed tiie petition aad submits that poUce officer are tiyittg their level best to execute the warraat. Copy of fhe order sheet and ofher documents reveals ftiat Chief Judicial Magisteate has issued warrants agauist fhe respondents No. 5 & 6 regularly but tiU today no warraiit has been executed by fhe poUce. No person js» above fhe law all persons are boiind by fhe law of the laad, On due consideration it is directed fhat if petitioner fiiles aa appUcation before fhe Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur xinder Section 78 of the Code of Criimaial Procedure, 1973 fhen Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur shaU issue fhe warrant against fhe respondents No, 5 & 6 aod same shall be sent to fhe Supenntendent of Police, Bastar at Jagdalpur for its execution. The Superintendent of Police, Bastar at Jagdalpur is directed that sxutable Officer be aufhorized aad sent for execution of fhe warraat aad ensiu-e fliat warraat shaU be executed ia ftie manner prescribed, with the above direction this petition is disposed of, Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge /r