HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 637 of 2001 Petitioner Rajesh Agrawai, son of late M.L. Agrawal, aged aboyt 36 yeare, presenBy owning a cyber cafe, resident of house no.H.1/15, Narmada Nagar, Bilaspur (C<3). Respondents . A Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh through Advocate General for Chhattisgarh State, Bitaspur. 2) Shailendra Shrivastava, the then Superintendsnt of Police, Bitaspur (Present whereabouis not known). 3) Shri Nagendra Pateriya, the then Town Inspector, Civil Lines Police Station, Bilaspur (present whereabouts not known). 4) ShriSukh Chain Singh, son gf Darshan Singh, aged about 28 ysars,Con^abte attached to Cwil Lines, P.S. Biiaspur. 5) Shri Vijay Singh, son of Kumar Slngh, aged about 27 years, constabte atoched todvjl Lines, P.S. Bilaspur. 6) Shri Mohan Shukla, Direetor General of Police Forcss,. Chhattisgarh State, Raipur. 7) Home Secretary, Chhattisgarh State, Raipur. 8) Chief Secretary, Chhatti^arh State, Raipur. (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constltution of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J. Presenfc Shri MaheshPandey counselfor the petltiwier. Shri S,K. Mishra.Pane! Lawyer forthe State. • ORALORDER (Passedon 26th Noyember, 2007) ^ Raju The petitioner has filed this pettion seeking a direction to the respondente No. 4 and 5 to pay a monetary compensation to him for violating his fundamental rights. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was falseiy implicated in a case wherein after tria! he was acquitted by order dated 9-3-2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biiaspur. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has suffered mentally and otherwise by illegal confinement in the jail. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the case was registered against the petitioner on the basis of compiaint made by Sushila Bai and acquitta! in trial does not lead to conelusion that the petitioner was falsely impiicated in the case. 4) The compensation, as sought for in this petNion, in normal course, cannot be granted as the criminal charges are framed on the basis of prima facie case and on complste friai a pereon can be acquitted. It cannot be held that during the course of trial, itwas illegal detention or confinement. 5) In the facts of the case, a charge-sheet against the petitioner was filed on the basis of the report of one Sushila Bai, for 'having committed offences under Sections 456 and 354/34 ofthe Indian Penal Code (Annexure R/1) and the case was registered. Thus, it cannof be held that the petitioner was implicated fatsely in a crimlnal ease on the ground that ultimately he has been acquitted by order dated 9-3-2000 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bitaspur. 6) There is no merit in the case. dismissed. The peBtion is. aecordingly Sd/- • Satish K. Agitihotri Judge ^ ' --<