DB. HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA M!SHRA,‘& HON’BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR, JU Writ Aggeat No. sos‘ofzmo Appellant Vipul Rai, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Petitioner) Sic Late Shyam Narain Rai, Aged about 31 years, Rio Near Shiv Mahdir, Lai Khadan, Police Station Torwa. Distt. Biiaspur. Chhattisgarh. Respondents 1. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya. DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Versus Shri Samir Kujur, counsel for the Shri UNS Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL JUDGMENT (21" February, 201 1) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J Petitioner's writ petition seeking direction to the Inspector General of Police, Crime investigation Department. Raipur, for conducting fair and impartial investigation to Crime No.161/10 has been dismissed by the impugned order. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that investigation of Crime No.161/10 is not being conduced fairly and impartially. The investigating Officer (l.O.) has tiled charge sheet by manipulating the case diary. which is evident from the observations of the First Additional Sessions Judge and his order of Annexure P/10. The criminal complaint pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate isv entirely different whereas the appellant has a constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution to have a fair, judicious, transparentand expeditious investigation into the matter. The LO. did not undertake scientificinvestigation, as prayed for by the petitioner, and old a fashioned crude investigation is being carried out in the matter. However, the Chhattisgarh. of Police, Chhattisgarh Police, 2. Director General Chhattisgarh. Police Head Quarters, Raipur, General of Police, Criminal Investigation 3. inspector General Police, Police Head Department, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh. Quarters, Raipur, of Biiaspur (Chhattisgarh) 4. Superintendent of Police, 5. The Officer incharge, Torwa Police Station, Biiaspur ‘ (Chhattisgarh) Present: f’? appetlant’s writ petition has been dismissed without adverting to the aforesaid aspects. 3. Heard Iearned counsei for the appellant, perused the record as aiso the impugned order. 4. Grievance of the appellant is that despite clear direction of the CJM, Bilaspur, the police is not investigating the matter properly. ln .complianee of the order of the CJM, crime was registered under Sections 458, 506, 392, 388. i 34 of the IPC. however, no action is being taken. 5. Learned Single Judge, considering the affidavit of the concerned Station House Officer that as per direction of this Court, statements of the petitioner, his wife as also statements of other witnesses have already been recorded and report is to be submitted to the CJM shortly, observed that since the matter is pending consideration before. the CJM, Bilaspur on the complaint of petitioner’s wife, this Court would not interfere in the investigation at this stage, when no exceptional circumstances has been pointed out except that there is delay in investigation of the matter.’ However, .liberty has been reserved to the petitioner that he may make appropriate application and raise his grievances before the CJM or any other competent judicial authority. 6. Thus, considering the above uncontroverted facts of the case, We are of the considered opinion that the learned Singie Judge has rightly declined to exercise powers under Article 226‘of the Constitution of lndia with an observation that there cannot be parallel proceedings, when there is no complaint against the CJM and the petitioner has statutory remedy available against the orders of the CJM. ‘The liberty has also been reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to the provisions of law. 7. After going through the impugned order, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere in the matter after assigning valid reasons, and there is no good ground available to the appellant against the impugned order. We find no substance in this appeal; the same deserves to be and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/— Dhirettdra Mishra Judge l l i ‘i