w WW...” Wki§$aww¢k ‘ 3m§i£ EEMH 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cr.) No. [u 7/9 OF 2011 / PETITIONER : Suryakant Shukla, S/o Late Shri Ravishankar Shukla, aged about 65 years, R/o Nehru Nagar 21/13 Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. “Superintendent of Police, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Police Station Teiibandha, Through: Its Station House Ofhcer, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ti WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF . INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRITZWRITS OR ORDER/ORDERS OR DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS OF THE LIKE L 1' ,IEA—RIICULARSIDEW‘EHFjLrL-m‘u /. “W“ gwG9 . ‘w uv‘ I, Rajesh Tiwari @ Bablu, S/o. Late Shri Radhey Shyafn Tiwari, Aged about 39 ycars, R/o. Jal WI? Colony, P.SL.- Telibandha, RaipurV(C.G.) and permanent resident of Indira Chowk, Shyam Nagar, P.S. ‘Tolibandha, Raipur (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (CL) NO. 1429 OF 2011 (Writ Petition under Artide 226 of the Constitution of india) Singie Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Dy. Advocate Generai for the State/ respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Manish Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.4. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 03’ day of August, 201 1) u 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ caning for the entire record of the murder of Nidhi Tiwari’s case as well as a direction to the \. Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the death of Nidhi Tiwari. the role of Doctors and respondent poiice authorities. It is further sought that a deciaration be made that the death of Nidhi Tiwari is not suicidal in nature, in view of postmortem report. Neediess to mention that a case has been registered being Sessions Case No.192/2o1o, pending trial before the 4t“ Additionai Session Judge, Raipur. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the police has not made proper investigation and as such, a direction be issued to the Central Bureau of Investigation to reinvestigate the matter. 3. Be that as it may, if according to the petitioner. the proper charges have not been framed and investigation has not been properly done, the petitioner being complainant can always make an application before the trial Court for reinvestigation or alteration of charge and taking further action. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the trial PETITIONER Suryakant Shukla Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Court has already recorded statement of the complainant on 26 & 27‘“ Juty. 201 1 ; thereafter, indisputably. no order has been passed. 4. At this stage, no interference is warranted in the case where trial is already pending before the Session Judge as aforestated. lf the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed by the Session Judge, the petitioner may take recourse to provision of law under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in the matter where trial is pending, writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. No strong and cogent reasons have been pointed out to take divergent view other than the normal course of practice. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge COSKI ashok