Hi$r§ S‘JQE-“ff QE: $%§-§A3‘§k§% WY E§i£x$§§$§§ mysgggw wkm‘: wwgaa wag magiEEv w?‘i¢a m fa g9§3$$§§ sm 3%“; Kamg awag, g usgi I W’fit Peiéiian No. $i3§ a? 2&5 Pregem: Shri MRS 3haiia, §eamed Deputy Gavemmeni AAHA$¢§¢ uvvwmu 4: if}; “43».- 112$ omt§. cu“ Qamag £2§m§ie§3meifyi 2§3€j§§) The fouewing order 0? the 6mm was pa$semf by Rajeav $uma, gui This writ patiiien came t0 be regi$éared 0n a teiggram sent by one — Smt. Anita Tim/am apprehena‘ing “ma? her husband — Charidrashekhar Tawai’i may be kiiied by the peiice in a fake encounter, ii wa$ further meniicmed in i‘he teiegram that fer the ias‘t 18 years no crimina! case wag reg§gtered against her husband — Chaniirashekhar Tiwari. ?i3€3é a m PETWC§NE§Q Swat Anita Tiwari, VWe I'H‘ Jug‘!‘ I'L‘ru. Ti” wuéHmaanémam Hvv'afi, l Hat"? l $ant0$h Bhawan, Sadar Bazar \Lmw {DI-Akin“. rayaia) REKMT (CG) §E$§§f€§§§f$ ’3. Suiaie at" Ghhaitisgarh; thraugh Semaiazy, Deg-artmea‘ét {Ef Hama DKS Bhawan. Raipur lf‘vf‘\ gum; :3uperintendeni a? Pciice, DA; n If“ f‘ \ rxaz§uf \v.s.:.; 3. $i‘aiicn Hcu$$ Offécer. CR3! Koiwag, Ra§pur.{C.G.) 75 2. m the ccumer affidavit $‘il3d 6n beha§f cf ihe State, it is categsricany mentianea’ that as many 3:; 29 criminal éaées were. mgisiered agaimi Chandra$hekhar Tiwan‘: husband‘ cf complainant Amia Tiwari under var10u$ $eciicns sf the mman Pena: Code. “me caunfer amiawit furihe? mentions that a hi$tory- $h$e€ is being maintainw 0f Chancira$hekhar Tiwar§, by i‘ne Patice. It is furiher emphatbaily d$nied in the counter i ‘ affidavit that Mun‘na Tiwari; brather at“ Chandfashekhar Tiwart was Kitled by the patice in a fake encauntar. 3. In viaw of th$ above mentioned bread features of the case, we 0f are 0f the oeimon that n0 wither monitoring at the matter in this writ geiitiani new, is requii’ecti 4. The writ petition; time, stande ciieneaen‘keiehi i m:\\w\% ‘ Sd/_ Sd/_ Sd/-§ Sunil Kumar I Sinha Chief Justice Judge inimmi