W.n.{C$ N0. 6330/2007 Kflo Das, S/o. Shri Dayal Das Sataaini, Aged about 40 years, R/o. ViUage Bedapard, Post-Khamhi Bazar, Tahsil-Lormi, District- Bflaspur (CG) Vs. 1, State of Chhatdsgarh Through tbe SeciBtaiy, Departinent of Hoiae, D.K.S.Bhawau, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG} 2. Director General of PoUce, Raipxir 3. Supermtendent of PoUce, Bilaspuj- 4. Of&cer-iu-Charge, Police Thaua- Lormi, District BUaspitr (CG) 5. Arjun Satnami, S/o. Stui Rajni Satnanii, R/o. Village Bedapard, Post Khamhi Bazar, Tahsil-Lormi, District Bflaspur (CQ) 6. Kisuja Sataami, S/o. Shri Rajni Sataami, R/o. Vffl^e Bedapaid, Post-KhamIii Bazar, TahsU-Lormi, District Bilaspur (CG) 7. Gulabo Satuami, S/o. Shri Rajni Sataami, R/o. Vfflage Bedapard, Post-Khamhi Bazar, Tahsil-Lormi District Bilaspur (CG) 8. Laklian Sataami, S/o. Shri Rajni Sataami, R/o. ViUage Bedapard, Post KhamTii Bazar, TahsU-Lormi, District Biiaspur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDBR AK.TICLE 226 OP THE CON8TITUTION QFINDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnlhotaft, J.) Shri Jitendra Pali, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govenunent Advocate for fhe State. ORDER (Passed oa this 23rd day ofOctober, 2007) Learaed couiisel appearmg for the petitioner submits fhat tbe petitioner has lodged Pirst lutbrmation Report with poUce station .2-- Lormi, Distnct Bilaspur on 04.01.2007 and the police have not taken any action till date on fhe First Infonnation Report. 2) Leamed counsel further subinits fhat the petitioner is an iliiterate person aad the petitioner's lundamental right to Ufe aad persoual Uberty is iavolved. 3) It was next contended fhat the case is squarely covered by fhe decision of the Supreine Coiirt ia fhe luatter of Zahira Habibullah H.Sheikh V. State of Oujarat reported in (2004) 4 SCC 158. 4) Leamed couasel further subinits fhat in fhe case of Zahira Habibullah H. Sheikh (supra) the Supreine Court has granted protection to eyewitnesses. 5) I Iiave considered all fh.e facts. Article 21 oftfae Constitution of India prescribes for 'Protection of Itte aad personal liberly i.e., "No person shaU be deprived of his life or persoual liberty except according to procedure estabUshed by law". 6) In the present case, fhere is no question of auy depnvation of tife aad personal Uberty as the case is investigation after lodging the first infonnation report. 7) The provisions of Section 156 read with Section 190 aad Section 200 of fhe Code of Crtmiual Procedure provides for iavest^atiou of cogiuzable cases by an order passed by fhe Magistrate. 8) The petitioner without foUowiag the provisions of law as prescribed under ftie Code of Crinunal Procedure, 1973 had approached this Court uader Article 226 of fhe Coustitution of India. The atteinpt of the petitioner is to give a go-bye to fhe provisions of ftie Code of Cruninal Procedure. Tbere is no question of in&tngeiiient of aay fuiidamental right enshrined iu Article 21 of fhe Constitution of India as there is no deprivation of hte life or personal Uberfy. ^-^" /• aSpnf u»oqiugv3iqspe;g -/PS •ampsoojd TBTOTOUOJO apoo aipjo suoisiAOjd 3ip lapvm. giqBpBAB TOTUQT j3Tpo ATIB o^ asmooai 3S[®io^ .tsuo^ttad aqi o^ paAiasaj ST iqSu 'J3A3AOH •in.tBTOixms passiuisip &(SvKpio3ae pae 3iqi3tttBi.ureTO ^oa ST aoi^Tiad: snp 'snqj, (6