\^ HISM COURT OF <MMATnS6ARH AT KELASPUR iiIVISIONBBMGH CORAM : HON'BieSHKE,JA61:>ISHBHAy.A,^C.J. HOIsrei^ SHRiI M13P RAOSAHffi&ESMMUKH. S. Appellant Petitioner Respondents Writ ABBeial No.248 of 2007 Pnween Kumor Pothak, <ged flbout37 V years,S/o Late Shri Prakash Norayan ' Pathak, R/o Polsaipcra, &iff^ (CS) '^: VCPSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7, 8. State of Chlpattisgarh, through Secretary, Hbme Depa'tment, Mtmtfaloya, Roipur (CS) Super'intendentof Police, &urg (G©) SK ycdav, Town Inspector, Police StationXotwali Ourg; [Old Bas Stand] &urg[C6] • PromoclPathdogedObou't'SSyeors.S/o Late Shri Prakash Nardycm Pathiakll Smt Archana Pathak, aged about 32 yearS.W/o PromodPort'hak ; (Respondent No.4 & B now illegal, occupont of MI®-125, PadtnanabhjWr, &u-9 PO & Oistrict - Ourg ^©) AmolPffthak,agiedabout33yelB's:| Practicihg Advocate at t>ucg, Bap Rf»m noA.&istrictCourtDurgi.POADisM' DurgICSJ MK Khan, a^eil ^ibout 33 yeaps, . [ • Pi'aGticing Ackwcate ttt Dur^iBai" R^om t>)oA^Districteayrt&urg,|>0&|>is|f. 'Dur9^6]' • . -. • .,';:"rv !li 1 : ^- Smt.Rukmam laiEl"igk<i9e<i abovt 7Q| ^ew:^^oP^VoS «Si.,nawW^^S- 12S;iRaelmian<ibKfiul';P04BisttE>u(g •Mi^: il^ I- ^ J-, jn Memorandumof Appeal under Section- 2 fl) Chhattisciarh Hicih Court (Appealto DivisibriBenchyAct.2006 Present! ShriBR6hoshandSmtMeeraJaiswal,6wjnselforthe appelltmt. <?r . ' ........:-. OraUudgment (Pa^ad on 12fh September, 2CX)7) ^ »'.,''„.'. • : ,., .. ::». !^... - Th& folloMiirg ordeKof the Court was paesed by Honlale Dtlip Raosaheb beshmukh, J. Heord. ! : • ; ; • . ! • The appellant is aggrievecl by the order^loted 20.08.2007, pas»d by'ttelecrnedSin9leJuc^eiriWPNo.843/2002,i«herebytheWritpetition waselisi'nlssed. Theappellant/petitioher^to^^p'^y^fo^theft'llowingt'eliefs io the wrjtpetrt'ioh: *(i) A direction kindly be issued to the 5tate respondent -1 toregisterl case against respondent-4 ta '7and olso againest t'espohdent No.3. (ii) Direction kindty begiven to state re^wncleht-l to suspend <»)d fransfer respdndent-3 for hisi derelictionof duty. • (iii) &irection kindly be given to stote pespondent-1; to conduct importial enquiry on -the basis 6f report anne><ureP/8andbi''irgtheculprit<it<i!tMok. !. ; (!v) The Sttrtie .respondeirh-l kindly be dir^eted to ^ restore po^^tonof^duse MI6-125 inPadmartat>hpur',|fj &t»*g.: ' : ,•'1.:, : -: :• ' : !. ' .:"'j |!T :^ (y) Compenstrt'ion to the tune as; moy be deetned jystified may RJrt^ifae dit'^Bt^ito^be (rid^ ;Ui (aetitioner-1 •ftwsl'he i-espondent-3. ^ (vi) Any o'^'ier'l kindly b&allo^d^oll'l'ieljietttionet'.' Sar-flssnienfr roet^d out to|tijni |(iy neliefj |deefned justifiecl nia^ ofsb llii ^J' ¥') subbu \? It appears that there is a dispute between two'brothers l.e. oppellcnt/petitioner on one hond ond respondent No.4 on the other over poaession of aime ance.stral property. It also appetrs thut- the appellant/ petltioner hod inititrt'ed proceetlirqs uriyer Secyon 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure cgainst respwident No.4 and the Sub &ivisiohol MBgistrate, Ourg hos alrefldy taken aqnizciicp of the mutter which is nowfixed for recording evidehce of partie^. The appellont/petitioner olsb hcjd an X,' _;..' .... : -. - ... .: altemotive arid |efficacioys remed^ of filin9a cwBplaint under Section 200 of Code of Criniindt Ppocedwe, if n6 oction was taken by the police on the reportslodged bythetippelltmt/petitioner. i In this view ofthe nlatteT,no gnouml •for tnterferehce is moiie out. TlTedppeal bejng devoidoffflerit, iStlismissed. Sd/- Sd/- • Acting Chief Justice DaipBaosahebDeshmukh Judge f: f: E