“M l“ Pr llru 9 1N THE V. g LasmMmJv—enaw y; a7 J m2 m m u.TITIO\1 UNDER MTICLES 226/227 OF THE: CONsTITUTIoN OF ENDIA 1o 2. Smt. Krlmna Mlsnra w1Fe of late (3.? Mlshra, aged about 44 yeor$, r/o Clvll Llnes, Jasnpur Nagar Dnsyrlct Jasnuur. ? PETIr‘ IUNASR HEGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BiLAseIJR (35GARH) \oo/r— wRIT PETmION N0. 30 OF 2001 BETWEEB? AND The Stai? of Chhattlsg&rn, .hrough the Home Secretary, GOVernment of Cbhattlsgarh, D K.Bullcilngs Radzpur. Director General of Police Chhattisgarh, Raipur . Shrl S.C. Kalurl, uuperlntendent OL Police, Jashpur Nagar,now posted as S.P. Korba Dzstrlct Korba . District Magigtrate (Collector)Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Nagar . Aaditional District Magistrate, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur . Shri i.P.Jangre, D.P. O. Jashpur Nagar,District Jashpur . RESPONDENTS Rrticulers of the Petitioner As stated in the Cause Title above. §articu1ars of the Respondents . AS stated in the cause title above. Particulars of the order against Which the peetition is made S WW i {iv}gwwwv A P “$3‘: ‘ ’ HIGH COURT OF CI-IHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 30 0f‘2001 PETITIONER : ' Smt. Krishna Mishra. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State of Chhattisgarh & Others. 6: Post for pronouncement ofjudgment & order oniDiféTay of Octg'goer, 2010. HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRI’l‘ PETITION N0. 30 of 2001 PETITIONER : SmL Krishna Mishra. VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OE INDIA Jr SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.“ .J Present: Shri Awadh 'I‘ripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. G.A. for the State/respondent No.1, 2. 4 and 5. Shri Rajkamal Singh, Advocate for the respondent No. 3&6. Ms. Neelima Verma, Advocate for the respondent N0. 3. JUDGMENT & ORDER (Dcliveredon .£.0.Hday of October, 2010) In the instant petition. the petitioner seeks following reliefs: “1) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to initiate appropriate action against the respondent No. 3 and he be punished suitably; 2) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the inquiry report which has been forwarded by the respondent No. 5 to the respondent No. 1 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 3) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are that the husband of the petitioner namely Late G.P.Mishra (for short ‘G.P.’) committed suicide on 06.09.2000 on account ol‘ unreasonable pressur and atrocities committed by the respondent No. 3, the then Superintendent ofPolice. Jashpur Nagar and the respondent No. 6 as it e B is cvident from the letter dated 06.09.2000 (Annexure P/l) addressed to His Excellency the Governor‘ a copy of which was marked t0 the Chairman, State Human Rights Commission, Director General of Police, Director General & Inspector General, Jails of the then State of Madhya Pradesh, Collector, Jashpur Nagar, Superintendent Central Jail, Bilaspur, Superintendent Sub .lail, Jashpur Nagar and the petitioner. On alleged suicide. a Magisterial enquiry was-instituted and a? the Additional District Magistrate, Jashpur Nagar, submitted the report on 22.1 1.2000 holding that involvement oi‘the then Superintendent of Police i.e. the respondent No. 3 and District Prosecution Officer have been found pi'oVcd. However, allegation of involvement of other officers have not been found proved. It was further concluded that 1 GP. was upset on account of his arrest in a criminal case which was registered as Criminal Case No. 17/2000 under the provisions of section 354 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(i)(Xi) and (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The police officers have taken special interest in prosecution of G.P under the provisions of the Act, 1989. 3. Cdnsequent thereupon, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition on 09.01.2001. This Court, after having taken cognizance ofthe matter, on 24.04.2001 ordered that if any fresh enquiry, as contended, was started after the issuance of notices in this petition i.e. 11.01.2001, the proceedings of such enquiry shall remain stayed until further orders from this Court. In the meantime. the Chairman, State Human Rights Commission also passed an order on 30.07.2002 on the complaint L )63 made by Shri Nand Kumar Sai, Member 0f Legislative Assembly, holding as under: ”13W3ieiiwglimamaa’c5w W$WiWWWWd W~Wwwwww1§a€f¥mm WW?%W$&W$WWW méda’cWwWWadmaim W$I wdmdélwaélmwaia wmwéiwgiw?! WW $é$ww€ra3m§amwmiv®ag Em mam, WW El 1m 2m am: m§i§3 W$%€I§II§H§WW@W§Q WWWWWWW: l‘ 14.Wf%‘w$mmm%wi%wm‘ag ; 11 W%%WWW%&:&@.WH$ WWWWWWH§$W WH~W$WW$W$w¥W giGrFHé’lgm 3m:WWWx—rlim%l” 4. The main contention of learned counsel For the petitioner is that once the Additional District Magistratei in his enquiry report, had found involvement of the respondent N0. 3, alongwith others, there was no reason not to proceed against the respondent No. 3, immediately. Secondly. once this Court has directed not to initiate any enquiry after 11.01.2001, the order (report) submitted by the Chairman, State Human Rights Commission, may be ignored and the respondent authorities may be directed to initiate action against the respondent No. 3. 5. Shri Tripathi further submits that once G.P. has written a suicide note, that cannot be ignored and that is enough to prosecute the respondent No. 3. It is further submitted that the allegation that GP. misbehaved with the wife of one terminated Jail employee, is baseless and without any basis. GP. was aivictim ol'police atrocities as is evident from the l \CRV\. report 0f the Additional District Magistrate. G.P. had informed to the \¥ ) \69 District Magistrate, Jashpur on 08.05.2000 (Anncxurc P/2) and the petitioner has also informed to Inspector General, Jails on 30.09.2000 (Annexure P/S). Thus, the State/respondents may be directed to take action against the respondent N0. 3 on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate, Jashpur. On the other hand, Shri Raj Kama] Singh. learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and 6 would submit that all'the allegations made against the respondent No. 3 and 6 are baseless and has been levelled in order to malign the image of the respondent No.3 and 6. The allegations have been examined at length by the Chairman, State Human Rights Commission and the learned State Commission has categorically found that the respondent No. 3 was in no way involved in any alleged police atrocities which allegedly lead to committal of suicide by G.P, though not proved. Shri Bhatia, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for thc State/respondent No. l, 2 and 4 would submit that the case was registered by the State Human Rights commission ofthe then State of Madhya Pradesh, as Case No. 6470/Jashpur, on 22.09.2000. After dieation of thc State of Chhattisgarh, the file was transferred to the Chhattisgarh Human Rights commission. The Chhattisgarh Human Rights Commission, after having examined the case at length, came to the conclusion that the allegations made by the petitioner were not found proved. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent Not 6 and in the enquiry, all the allegations were also not found proved. The State of Chhattisgarh has accepted the order/report dated 30.07.2002 of the Chhattisgarh Human Rights Commission and accordingly, it was ordered that no further action was warranted against the respondent No. 3 by order dated 28.08.2009 (Document-B). I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The petitioner has not attempted to challenge the order (report) of the Chhattisgarh Human Rights Commission on any ground, more so a legally permissible grounds at all. The magisterial enquiry report was conducted by an administrative officer of the rank of Additional District Magistrate. Thereafter. enquiry was conducted on a complaint made to the State Human Rights Commission and on perusal, it appears that all the written, oral and circumstantial evidences have been considered by the State Human Rights Commission, at length. The order/report runs into 18 pages. Needless to state that the Chairman of the Chhattisgarh Human Rights'Commission is the former Chief Justice of the High Court and there is no allegation of malafide or anything against him. There is no reason to brush aside the said order/report dated 30.07.2002 of the Chairman, Chhattisgarh Human Rights Commission, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Contention of the petitioner that the Chhattisgarh Human Rights Commission ought to have stayed the proceeding after interim order dated 24.042001, deserves to be rejected on the simple ground that the order dated 24.04.2001 restrained starting of any fresh enquiry after 11.01.2001. The State Human Rights Commission did not start 6 the enquiry after 11.01.2001, but the case before the Madhya Pradesh Human Rights Commission was registered on 22.09.2000 and the same was transferred Lo the Chhauisgarh Human Rights commission on creation of the State of Chhattisgarh. Thus, there was no Violation of the order dated 24.04.2001 in continuing with the enquiry by the Chhattisgarh Human Rights commission, on transfer of the ease and passing order thereon. 11. The magisterial enquiry report cannot be given preference in the light of the order/report submitted by the Chhattisgarh Human Rights, Commission, thus, I am of the considered View that the order dated 30.07.2002 (Annexure R/3—1). passed by Chairman. Chhattisgarh Human Rights Commission appears to be conclusive and as such, I do not find any reason to take a contrary View in the facts and circumstances of the case. %; t” y 12. For the reasons and analysis as aforementioned, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought in this petition and the petition is accordingly dismissed. 13. There shall be no order asto costs. Sdl- i 9 Amit