__._._—’-—* ‘ Wlit Pctition 1C) No.1 2074 of 2008 r Petitioner I ‘ " ‘ ‘ fNand aged Baghbehm Klshom about Tehsll 28 Sabu years, 6n Slo Dlstt R/o Dhan Mahasamund Ward Smgh No “Sahu, 11 ‘- ’ (C G) ’ _ V L HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I'I‘ISGAR’H z BILASPUR Respondents ‘: Versus 1 State V of Chhatmsgarh through Secretary, ' _ Home Department D K S Bhawan, Raipur, i ‘ ‘ i 3 2. H The Dlstt Headquarter Dlmctor Ralpur (C Chhamsgarh General G) of Raipur, Pohce, Police Distt; , ' Raipur(C ) 3. The Raipur(CG Superintendent of Pohce, Raipur, Distt.; E 4._ The Station incharge Police Stauon Palan" ' Distt Ralpur (C G) WRIT PETITION UNDER AMICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA «4" 1 § x that I the matter ' was not properly done, Ae can _ , very well make - an appropnate apphcauon before the tnal Court] Mag1suate 3., I-Ion’ble Supreme Court m Sakiri Vasu Vs state of U P. 8b othersl observed that “we often mm that when someone has a gnevance that hls FIR has not been reg1stered at the pohce statton and] or a proper mvestlgatlon 1s not bemg done by the pohce, he rushes to the H1gh Court to EC a wnt pentlon or a petrtlon under Secuon 482 Cr P C We are of the opmlon tha the Hlgh Court should not encourage thJs practlce and should ordmarlly refuse to mterfere 1n such matters, and relegate the pennoner to hls alternauve remedy (Also see ‘Mohd. Anish Memon Vs. State of C G. & others2, Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others") In Sakiri Vasu (supra), 1t was further observed that “the Maglstrate has very w1de powers to duect reglstratlon of an FIR and to ensure a proper mvesngatlon, and for th13 purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensur that the investigation is done properly In the present case, the matter 1s pendmg trial before the Additional Sess1ons Judge, Baloda Bazar, D1str1ct Raipur Therefore, at this stage 1t 1s nelther expedient nor proper to issue a wnt mterferlng W1th the tnal or directing remvestigatlon by some agency, other than the police In v1ew of the above, the pennon 1s d1sm1ssed as not L mamtainable However, as prayed liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make an application before the Court/Authority concerned for domg the needful in the light of the Judgnent in Sakri Vasu (supra). ‘_ 1 Satish I :‘Judge K.Agn1hotn 1 ‘ ' _._..-_._._—.——-+—‘ v (2008) 2 soc 409 22009 (i) CG LJ 315 3 (2007) 6 scé 171 W7 t e