S^^^^f^ .1^.1' ^ :'%.;•;'E^iLu "^' •^,S^U;1 g JKSBi8BMSK:'; iy'i C^ %<^3^ IN HI6H CO'UR'T- OF CHMATT-I56ARM AT BILASPUR WRX-T PETITION (CR)JsjlO.,3>fti5a OF 2010 PE1-ITIONERS W^SSBsf^ isaaa; »tjl; KOt ws m B» fs!S SSSSSi ^^^^®si •'A^ o^&^ ^ ^^^ ^yW' ^^^ ^^ '"y / 1. Sumqn Siwgh, aged-39 years, S/0 Late Shri Batuk Singh Raj.put, R/G Village-Sakri, P.S-fihakgrbhaiita, District- Bilaspur (C.&) / 2. E>inesh Yadav; aged 41years, S/Q Late Shri JayshRee yddav, R/0 Mungeli Naka, Bilaspur (C.©) vs RESPONDENT •:<!? [ifL ^ / "/<&1 ^ \ <^ 1. State of C.e, through thrpugh the Secf'etary, Home Depar'tmeht, D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur (C.G). i^ 2. Director Generdl of Police, Raipur (C.6) / 3. Inspector (Seneral of PoK-ce, Bilttspur (C.©). /• A. Superintenctent bf Police, Bilaspur (C.&). , 5. Station 1-fouse Officer, Police Station-Kota, Disti-ict-Brlaspur (C.6) •Sf'-:-^'^^ WRIT PEtlTION UN bER ARTICLE 226 OR THE CONiSTlTUTION^F INDIA 1. PRT1CUI.ARS OF PEfniONER; - As menfjbned in the cduss 't'i1'le 2; PARTICULARS OF REaPONC) ENTS:- BBI BBS ^SiS^^SS- — 'SSSSs. As mentioned in the cause title. s& 3. PARTICULARS OF THE OR&ER ASAINST WHICH PRESENT PETITION IS MAbE:- THE :^ mGHC0URTOE€HHA']mse^I^^ •WlUTPETm(^ r.) NG£30t)^»f2010 PETITIONERS ; SumanSiiigh&anOther. . .yERS'US..':;...'1...'''.:.:..:::- RESPONDBNTS : State ofCi.G. &©fhers; WMTPETIII<^UNBERAI^e]^2260ETHEeONST1Mffl SB:Hon'bIeSbnS£ttisliK.A£iuliotri,J. Present: SHriV.C.Ottahvarwitfa^ShriSiddUairtKRath6d,A(ivocatefbr thepetitkiners..,"'^::;;,;;:' ! :':. , ', ':'.' :• ': .:'!; ''•'1 • Shn M.P.SJ3hafia, ©eputyOovemment Advocate fffl^ the State. ORfiERfORAL) • " :: . •':, •: ::.,. ::' 1'1 (PassedonlOtllday6fAugust,2010) By this petitioii, the ^etitumer seeks a di^^ fi]% appropHat&'gclaonanS'to.^^tlte^erm^ ofC^attisgarh v.;lIpeffid:c&lSmgK^EM^^ MagistrateI7irstClass^r,s'/^3^1'@^3,K CentralBureauofInvestigalion., , : ^ :.: .'•.'^.^ ^: ^. The facts, in iiutshell, as projeeted by the petitionfirs ar& tKat^th6 petiti<:Jn^ . 1 lodg#^an;E.%;a]^gEee^Staiion^^l^ v^cB^•H^^|egiisla^|as^iim®;^0;,^7^009,'^v^ ^isBaBlie:iffi^see@ffi 1^^48,^49,: 32^^^^ Ind^fea^'Slo ^^sfi^y'tKeH>€yw accused pereons.' Investigatibn was^^^ c^ (Annexure P/l) was produced befbre the^^^^^ petitkmerBobtainedaceflifedcc^ofthe?^ them that their statem^ imder section 161 ofthe Code of C Procedure, WS(/orshort ^P.G ^ was^empletely differentffc^ iEX: ^^ statement wKich they have actyally deppsed before the investigatmg officer. • s- : • .'•• '..'.,. '•....'•• •• •..•••'•. .'..••..•.•. .: • • .• ' :• 3. Leamedcounselappearmgforthepetitionersubmitsthatsection365of the IPC has been removed by the police anthorities fi-omthe-final repprt m6rdertoproteetfheaccusetfpersoris.Thus,tfaeofEenceco:ii^^ the accused persons came within the purview of bailable offence, and the accused perspns who were absconding, appeared tefbre the police authorities and they were grauted bail &oin the police station itselfon 20,01.2010. The police authorities have further changed the name 'of father of one of the accused namely Upendra Singh which was mentioned as Upendra SulgU S/6 Aliyar Singh Rajput and later on, it was changed tb Upendra Singh s/o Jagdish. Shri ©ttalwarfurttier submits that this facf camemtb Bi^knOTvledge ofthe petition^ the petitioner obtained certam infonhation fi'Qm the respondents under fhe proyisions ofRighttoInformationAct, 2005 (/or sfort '<fe ^rt, 2005') wherein the police authorities have stated that an offeiice under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 365, 506, 294 and 427 of IPC were registered in the FIR, whereas in final report, dffence undersection 325, 365 and 506 was not mentioned. Furfher, it was revealed by the infbnnation provided By the respondents under the provisions of the Act,2005thatthenameoffather6foneoftheaecuSednamelyUpendra Singh has also been chariged. Thus, ftom perusal ofthe same, it is clear that the above aetion of the police authprities was done in order to protect the acGilsed persoiis. Shri Ottalwar further submits that the petitioners have made an applicatidn to the Director General of Police, to cenduct reinvestigation m crime No. 274/2009, but tilF date, nothing has l^ee done. Thus,^^^^^a^ lemvestigatefhematterferimpartialandfair^^i^^ On ^ other hand, Shri Bhatia, leamed counset a^ State/Tespondente siibmits that tUis petition is not maiBtainable, at ihis stagemlighfoffhejyclgmentahdoK^passedbyl^SupremBGoto Sakiri Vasu v. ^te c^Kf' <6^ o^ may ratse the afbresaid grievance under the provisiQns • of Code of Crimmal Procedure, 1973:^r^ort^e <>.?.£^beforeitUeleamedMagisfratB, belfore Niomt&e matter is pendmg considei^on. Fnr^ toinfbrmationprovidedtoy.fheresgpndentstofhepefitiw prcwisions of eAct, 2005, is cc emed, if fhere is^a^ discrepancy, or the petitioners are dissatisfied^^^^w information provided by the respondents, the petitioii6rs inay very well aRproacb;ihe appella.tefbnun.'.''' '•:,:,: •:,:: •••'•:'r''::';l''':';' ' Heard learaed counsel fcr the partie^ documeHts^ppendedthereto. v In the ChallanfiledheforetheJ& Ct^^ SmghMs been Shovm a&Upendra SingUs/0 Jagdish Singh mfonnation proyided by the PubUc Infbrmation OffiGer, PbKce Station Kota(AimexufeP/4);imdertK&prcwisipnsofthe^A^ mentioned as Upendra Singh s/Q Aliyar;Siflgh. Rajput; TIltus, accbrding to the pelationef, there is aehange in aame ofthe accused; Smce the charge-sheet faas already been ffled ffl^^^^ Kota and the matter is pendmgconsideratipn, fMs Co at this stage. The petitioner is ^Iibertyto make appro]»iat&^ before the Gourt of JMEG, K^a whel-ein ^ 4:U! 4 (2008) 2 SCC 409 ^ consideration for statmg deficiency and ftuther investigation as requested by this petition, under the provisions of section 173 of the Cr.P.C., ifsoadvised. 8. The Supreme Court, mSakiri Vasu ^upro^, observed as under: "11. In this connection we would Uke to state that if a. perspn has a grievance that the police station is notregistering his FIRlmder Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent pf Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., by an applicatiQn ffl writuig. Even if fhat does not yield any satisfactpry resultin the sensethateithertUeI?IRisSfillnotregistered,Qr tfaat even after registerfug it no proper , irrvestigadon is teeld, it is open to the aggrieved person M file an application under Section 156(3) CrJ}.C.,hefbretheleamedMagistrate concemed. IfsuclianappliGationunderSectioh 156(3) isfiledbefore the Magistrate, the Magistrate ^an direct the FIR to be registered and also caa direet a proper inyestigation to lie made, m a case where, according to the. aggrieved person, ao proper in^ made. The A^isti^ ean also same provisioitmonifor^heinwestigatiohto ensure a proper investigation." 9. In light ofthe aboye, the writ petition is disposed ofwith liberty, as aforestated, without recprding any fmding on merits ofthe case, as the same may influence the proceedmgs periding before the Court below. 10. No brder asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn __ Judge lAmit