..K.as^ aa> '-<iaa HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT MLASPUR CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION N0. 118/2011 PETITIONEI^: 1. 2. RESPONDENT8: VERSUS 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. Sint. Krishiia Devi Sharma, Wd/o Late Ram Sharan Sharma, Aged about 82 years. Ram. Manohar Sharma, S/o Late Ram Sharaa Shanaa, Both are residents of C/o Shri Raja Sharma, Devnandan Nagar Phase II, Infront of Vishal TaUors, Bauna Road, Bilaspur (CG). State of Chhattisgarh, Through Department of Hoiae, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, Beside Sub Registry Of&ce, Bilaspur (C.G.). Superintendcnt of Police, Biiaspur (CG). Shri Bonifas Ekka, A^ed about 45 years, Former Inspector, Police Station Seepat, Bilaspur (CG). Shri Pratap Thakiir, Aged about 40 years, A.S.I. Police Sfation Seepat, Bilaspur (C.G.). Sbri V.K. Mishra, D.S.P. Crime Branch, Bilaspur(CG). PBTITION UNDER SBCTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODB. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present;- Shri Goutam Bhadiiri, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. G.A. for the State. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 05/03/2011) By this petition under Section 482 offhe Cruniaal Procedure Code, (ia short 'fhe Code') petitioners seeks for direction to investigate the offence ofiaurder ofhusband ofpetitioner No, 1 Ram Sharan Sharma. Leamed counsel for the petitioners subxaits that earUer petitioner Cr. M.P. No. 760/2010 this Court has dtrected for fau- investigation vide order dated 9/11/2010 but poUce has not iavestigated the offence fhat too agauist other accused persons and has filed chai^e sheet only agamst one RamashaDlcar Netaxn. ^ ^ z-— 3. As per claun of petitioners, petitioner No. 1 was present iu the room. at the time of conunission of niurder of her husbaud who was badly tajured and more than 20 iujuries were fouud over the body of deceased, he has pointed one person agamst whoin prosecution has filed charge sheet. 4, Di.u-mg coiu-se of arguiaent learued counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show that why the petitioners No. 1 & 2 has not nained the ofh.er assailant/inassacre. Prosecution is under obUgatiou to ffle chat^e sheet against the persous agauist wliom prosecution is able to coUect suf&cient inaterial. 5. This is not fhe case where prosecution is spartug auy iniscreant or accused. After coiupletion of fhe iavestigation prosecution has filed charge sheet agamst one accused. Petitioners arc not in position to point out the name of ofher accused or the act attributed to thein. In absence of such uiaterial, prosecution caiuiot be coinpeUed to prosecute auy person. However petitioners are at liberty to file complamt agauist the persons ou the basis of inaterial available wifh fhem or fhey may file appropriate pctition before the Court takiug cognizance at the time of takiag cognizance or at the stage of trial under Section 319 of the Code. I do not find any scope for iuterference or issuaace of direction to flie respondents. Consequently, petition is liable to be dismissed aud is hereby disinissed. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge -^