Page Number @ Single Bench C4 tr?/{ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (cm No. QWE/zou / PTITINER Sunil Saraogi partner M/ s. Explopack, Sector C, Shed No. 74, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur (CG) through its Power of Attorney Padmakar Bhagat, S/o. Shriram Bhagat, aged about 32 years, R/o. Plot‘ No.29, C/o. Yogendra Jha, Gangotri tenament, Sainagar, MIDC, Hingna Road, Nagpur—16 VERSUS . State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Home, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. / The Superintendent of Police Raipur (CG) 3. / Station House Officer Police Station— Urla, Raipur (CG) 4. " Vijay Kumar Singh, R/o Om Vihar, VIP Mana Road, Raipur (C.G.) Dr. (Mrs.) Neena Singh, W/o. Vijay Kumar Singh, R/o Om Vihar, VIP Marla Road, Raipur (CG) Vishal Singh, S/o. Vijay Kumar ’Singh, 'R/o Om Vihar, VIP Mana Road, Raipur (CG) 7. Geeta Singh, W/ o. Vishal Singh, R/o Om Vihar, VIP Mana Road, Raipur (CG) EO RESPONDENTS Page Number i@ W KETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LNDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS am mm.wx w.? mju l WW WIW mmmw $Wm SB ' Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava J 2£-04-2011 Shri Shrijith Nair, counsei for the petitioner‘ Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the Stateirespondents 1‘ to 3. Heard on admission. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of mandamus directing fresh investigation into the entire incident bv independent‘agency and aiso to direc: officiai respondents to provide poiice protection to the petitioner and prevent untoward incident in the factory premises at the instance of respondents 4 to 7. Learned counsei for the petitioner submitted that out of dispute of pureiy civil nature existing between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7, the private respondents took recourse to :riminal act and their staff and agents destroyed the factory and aiso iooted vaiuabie property from the factory of the petitioner. On a report iodged, the po ice, though investigated the matter but registered offence oniy under Section 380 and 454 read with Section '34 of I IPC against six persons but even tho gh there is ample material, offence in the matter of dacoity has not been egistered and chalian has been fiied against six persons, alieging commis ion of offence under Section 380 and 454 read with Section 34 of IPC. He urther submits that respondents 4 to 7 and their men are frequently visiting th factory premises of the petitioner and the petitioner is getting threats of dire onsequences. ln these circumstances, a direction may be issued to the in estigation agency to register offence under Section 395 and also 120-8 f IPC and prosecute the responsibie persons. He further submits that the p iice may be directed to provide proper protection to the petitioner against cr inal acts of respondents 4 to 7. i mm mm mmmm WWIEWW‘ mvfa (—2, kmm On the other hand, Iearned S‘ate counsei submits that from the material on record, it is revea!ed that on FIR iodged by the petitioner, offence has been registered against the resporsible persons and charge sheet has ‘aiso been fried in the Court. He further submits that if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to non—registration of crime in reiating to aiieged commission of dacoity, the petitioner is at iiberty to move appropriate appiication before the concerned Magistrate. He further submits that as far as prayer for poiice protection is concerned, the administration and the police is committed to provide protection and save iife and iiberty of citizens and as and when, reports are lodged by the petitioner, the poiice ofhciais concerned shatt take appropriate action in accordance with taw. As far as prayer of the petitione' for direction of fresh investigation is concerned, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction to the investigation agency because on the report lodged by the petitioner, the poiice has already investigated the matter and charge-sheet has also been tiled before the Magistrate alleging commission of offetce under Section 380 and 454 read with Section 34 of IPC against six persons. if it is the case of the petitioner that proper investigation has not been made or offence relating to dacoity has not been charged against those six persons, the petitioner is at tiberty to take appropriate steps by moving criminal Court in accordance with the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. in view of the statements made by learned counsel for the State, it is directed that respondents 2 and 3 shal look into the complaint, if any, made by the petitioner and provide proper police protection to the petitioner in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is flnally disposed off Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava +. h Judge