m r RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CI-H-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cr ) No 221 of 2009 I , PETITIONER Ram Bihari' ‘oje S/o Late R.K.Kannoje Aged 38 years, R/o Shyam Nagar Plsaj Para, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) I . State of Chhattisglarh Through: The Secretary, Home and Transport Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) . Naveen v VERSUS Dewangan S/o Rammanohar . I, Dewangan Thana Road Mohaba Bazar, Amanaka Thana Road Raipur (C.G.) . N Kujur Thana Prabhar‘i Somini Thana Somini, Drstrrct Rajnandgaon (C G) . Thana Prabharl Thana Kotwall RaJnandgaon 5. Thana Prabharr Thana Kotwah Durg WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB Hon’ble Shrl Satlsh K Agnlhotn, J > , ORAL ORDER 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the bus bearing N0. i CG 04 E 0362 was snatched away by the respondent No 1 and taken to the Pohce Statlon Somml where 1t was lying from 04 01 2009 to 07 01 2009 The respondent No 2 filed a c1V11 sult being No 190 A/2007 clalmlng the ownership of the bus and permanent 1nJunct10n agalnst the petitioner on the ground that the bus ls 1n Jomt ownership on 27 August 2008 The a 9f respondent No. 2 succeeded 1n ithe suit whereby the respondent No. 2 was t ‘ - deciaped as joint owner of the disputed bus and the petitioner was injuncted ‘ 1 permanentlyhom interfering with the ownership ’of the respondent No. 2f Present: Shri N K Chatterjee Advocate for the petitioner Shri Alok Baksh1 Government Advocate for the State/ respondent No 1 4 and 5 (Passed on 16m day of January, 2009) ‘ §Be that as it may, since the ownership of the bus has been decided byrthe k fcompetent c1Vil court this Court cannot interfere in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India If the pet1t10ner has any grlevance the I :petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to statutory appellate forum that may ‘ be available to the pet1t10ner under the prov131ons of law Wlth regard to the u _ Vallegatlon of crlmmal offence commltted by the respondents 2 to 5 the i ;p‘etj1t10"ner 1s further at llberty to approach competent court or authorities?for ‘ , ;appropriate relief available under provisions of law. u 3In View of aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed 0f. ‘ . y iConseqUently, LA. No. 1, for interim relief, aISO stands disposed of; ?l Satish K.Agnihotr1 l E l > .r Judge . l , l l ' s- lL:i l 4‘ i _ l; 27;;2‘ ' The petitioner has filed the present petltion questioning the snatching of the ibus 1n dispute illegally by the respondent No. 2 to 5.