HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH Coram : HON'BLESHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLESHRIN.K.AGARWAL,J. WRITAPPEAL No.MofZOO? ^ APPELLANTS PETITIONERS 1. Rakesh Raman Singh, Aged about 50 years, S/o Shri Vishwanath Singh Occupationservice, working as Surveyor, Office of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Department of Agriculture, R/o Kedarpur, Mission Chowk Ambikapur.Chhattisgarh RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS 2. Y.P. Dewangan, Aged about 54 years, S/o Late Shri Kanhaiyalal Dewangan, Occupation - Service, Working as Surveyor, Office of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Department of Agriculture, Ambikapur, R/o Village/Block Batauii, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 3. Naresh Singh Parmar, Aged about 47 years, S/o Shri Sultan Singh Parmar, Occupation - Service, Working as Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Lakhanpur, R/o Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home (Police), Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Agriculture, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Direetor, Agriculture Directorate, Department of Agriculture, Raipur, Chhattisgarh w8B!^!i '-^'SKe^^Ss •^fi£'.%siSs^ ^ 4. Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 5. Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur, Distrfct Surguja, Chhattisgarh 6. Joint Director, Department of Agriculture, Surguja Division, Ambikapur; Chhattisgarh 7. Deputy Director, Agriculture, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 8. Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 9. R.G. Ahirwar, Aged about 42 years, S/o Late Shri Jamuna Prasad Ahirwar, Occupation - Service, Working as Assistant Soii Conservation Officer, Department of Agriculture, Ambikapur, Distrtet Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 10. Assistant Soil Conservation Officer Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1} OF THE CHHATTISGARH H!GH COURT (APPEAL TODJVISION BENCHl ACT. 200S Present: Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri J.K. Gilda, learned Additionat Advocate General for the State/respondents No. 1 to 8 and 10. JUDGMENT (31st March, 2009) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CsJ.: Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. SS 11 °)^ 2) The appellants have filed this writappeal against the impugned order dated 10.02.2009, passed in W.P.(Cr.) No.842/2009. 3) The appellants / petitioners had filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: "10.1 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for theentire records pertaining to the registration of the offence at crime number 23/2009 registered at Police Station Ambikapur from possession of the respondents. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue awrit in the nature of certiorari quashing the First Information Repprt dated 10.01.2009 registered at Crime Number 23/2009 at Police Station Ambikapur District Surguja. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to check their records for the vouchers already submitted by the petitioner and to withdraw the complaint. (First Information Report) made to the police authorities. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court be pteased to issue a writ of mand&mus directing therespondents/State to consider the representations of the petitioner and enquire into the complaints made by the petitioner against respondent No.9. 10.5 This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to issue any other order or orders, writ or writs, direetion/directions as it may deem fit in the facts and circumstances pf the case, in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. The petitioner may also be awarded the costs of petition." \ lllilj-^l^tEI 1 "^" 4) The petitioners, thus in substance, were seeking quashing of the First Information Report registered against the petitioners at Crime No.23/2009 at Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja for the alteged commission oftheoffence punishabte under Section 409 read with Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code. 5) The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners did not find favour with the writ court resulting in dismissal of the appetlants' writ petition vide impugned order dated 10.02.2009. 6) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any ground for quashing ofthe First Information Report and the case registered against thepetitioners which is at the stage of investigation. 7) The writ appeal; therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarity. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge subbu •I;);:;ri "T"-' •!•!-!•" •^^^jfl^:gsSS&:?sSiS'-^SSSys:SsswS^S&^^^&Sa^^: