a tj. yD HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Sinale Bench: - Hon'ble Shri S.R. NAYAK. CJ PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS W.P. N0.5913 OF 2005 1. Laxman Sahu, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Parsadi Sahu, 2. Raj Kumar Sahu, aged about 24 years, S/o Laxman Sahu, Both R/o ward no.3, ChlRhali, Distt. Rajnandgaon, C.G. Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, the Secretery Home Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur C.G. 2. Inspector General of Police Stete of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, C.G. 3. Superintendent of Police, Centra Bureau of Investjgation. State of C.G., Raipur, Distt. Raipur, C.G. 4. Superintendent of Police Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon, C.G. 5. tncharge, police stetson City Kotwali Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon, C.G. Present: Mr. Vishnu Koshte, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on 28m November 2005) The crux of the allegations in this writ petition is that the prosecution has falsely, impjjcated petitioner no. 2 for the offence puntehable under Section 307 of the Indian Panel Code for coltateral and . 1. -2- extraneous consideration. The petitioners having so alieged have sought forthe following reiiefs:- 7. Relief(s) sought: In view of the facts and grounds stated above, the petitioner aeeks isaue ofthe following relief(s}:- 1. That the Hon'blo Court may kindly issuea direction to respondente to inve^tigate the matter by Central Bureau of Investigation or any other independent agency in the interest ofjustice. 2. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent no. 4 to produce the entire record pertaining to the petitioners comptain as wetl as the police registered the case against the petitioner no. 2 as crime no. 122/2005 an offence punishable U/s 307 of IPC by City Kotwaly Rajnandgaon. 3. Any other relief which this Mon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petjtioner together with cost of the petition. 2. The writ petition itself discloses that the petitioners were aware of th© fact that tho jurisdictional polico having investigated into tho ailegations, have filed charg^ shoet before th^ jurisdictional Sossion^ Court and the same is numbered as ST. No. 32/2005. in the first pjace, the question whether the second petitioner is falsely implicated in the case or not is a disputed question of fact and this Court in a summary proceeding under Artlcle 226 of the Constitution of India would not be well-advised to undertake resolution of such disputed Tact. Secondiy, the Sessions Court before which the charge sheet is filed cannot be said to lack jurisdiction to try the case. Thirdly, if thore is no legal basis or evidence to implicate the second petitioner, the second potitioner will undoubtedty has right of defence in the triaS to sustasn his stand. Fourthly, 118 -r5- the writ petltjon js filed at a belated stage after the jurisdictional pofice have investigated into the aileged crime and filing charge sheet before the jurisdictional Sessions Court. Looking from any angje, it is, therefore, not appropriate for this Court to step-in under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and interfere with the trial. The writ petition is dismiQQed. However, 1 make it clear that by this order it should not be understood that the Court has expressed any oprnion on several altegations made by the petitionQrs in the course of writ petition and they are left open to be agitated at an appropriate stage as law permlts. Sd/- Chief Justice B^^k