HIGH COURT GF $HHATT3SGA§H AT EILA$?U§ DB. HON‘ELE SHRI DHIRENDRA WHSHRA. & ON’BLE $HR! RN. CHANQRAKA - Writ Anneal No.27? of 2G1 0 Petitioner / Gavaorasad Pandev S/o Late Dhane$hwar Prasacj Appe!!ant PaEdey, aged 58 years, Rio Ta!apara, $ukhcha§n Bada Taiyaba Ci‘uowk, PS. Civii Line, Di$€L Biiaspui' (CG) Versus Respondent 1. State of Chhattisoarh‘ Through : (A) Secretary, Home Departmem, State of CG, Raipur (CG) (B) Director General of Poiice, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG) 2. Vivekanand Sinha, District Superintendent of Poiice, Bilaspur (CG). Goverdhan Sinqh Thakur, (:)2 ' Additiona! District Superintendent 0f PQHC-e (City) Bilaspur (CG) 4, Dinesh Kumar Sahu‘ Station House Officer PS Civii Linee Biiaspuri’CG) Presentiy posted at : P34 Lormi, Distt, Biiaspur (CG) Muriidhar Jaiswai. Assistant8ub inspector, PS, Civii Lines, Biiaspur (CG) Presentiy posted at: Poiice Outpost, Sakri, Disti Biiasour(CG) Present Mr. VK Mishra, counsel for the apoeiiant. Mr. GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL JUDGMENT (1 3"“ August, 201 a) Per Dhirandm Mishra .l Sunny Pandey, son of the appellant, was murdered on 31 5‘ July, 2009. On the report of the appellant on 1.8.2009, Crime No.755/09 was registered in Police Station — Civil Lines, Bilaspur under $ections 302, 147, 148, 149 & 1203 of the IPC against the accused persons and charge sheet was filed against six accused persons on 9.4.2010. showing two accused persons absconding. 02. The appellant filed a writ petition against the respondents alleging that the deceased had lodged named reports against the accused persons on i 4.7.2009 vide Annexure P/1. Another report was lodged against one of the accused persons 5y one Jyoti Koushik on 8.7.2000. A written report was lodged by the deceased and four others against the accused persons to the Superintendent of Police on 18.7.2009 clearlv mentionino the above action of cs 1 H R dJ i the accused persons and stating that the SHO of the concerned police station did not take any action and therefore, suitable prohibitory proceedings should be initiated against them so that the inhabitants of the locality are telieved from their terror and no untoward incident takes place. The named report was again lodged on 25.7.2009, however, complainant .Ganesh Prajapati was advised to approach the Court under Section 155 of CrRC. BecaUse of the above inaction on the part of respondents No. 2 to 5, his son Sunny Pandey was murdered. in these circumstances, on 12442010 an application was filed before the Chief Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh vide Annexure P/6 for filing charge sheet under Section 119 ot‘ IPC after enquiry. When no action was taken by the State Government, a writ petition was filed for the foltowing substantive reiiefs: (i) for damages to the petitioner of Rsm lacs from respondent No. 2 to 5 (d) R5250 iacs each; a direction be issued for filing charge sheet under Sections 1:19 and 21 7 of the IPC against respondents No. 2 to S: (iii) investigation of murder case of the petitioner‘s son be entrusted to Central Bureau of lnvestigation, who may file supplementary charge sheet after recording statements of the leftover witnesses; and (iv) direction be issued to respondent No.1 to ensure arrest of the absconding accused Sonu Dubey @ Santosh and Golu @ Mavadih and till filing of the supplementary charge sheet, proceedings in the pending Sessions Trial No. 9/10 before the 1“ ASJ, Biiaspur be stayed. 03. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the appeilant would argue that the writ petition has been summarily dismissed without obtaining repiy from the respondents oniy on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy for redressai of his grievances under the Code of Criminal Procedure, reserving libero] to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances. 04. Relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of the MP High Court in the matters of Ekta Parishad (N60) and others Vs. State of MP and others reported in 2008(3) JLJ 3f8, it was argued that it is the bounden duty of the State Government and its officers to ensure the right of life to its , citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution. Respondents No. 2 to 5 were duty bound to take suitable steps including prohibitory proceedings against (ii) I the named accused persons 0n the basis of successive reports against them and on account of their falmre m discharge of their duties Iife of his son could no? be profec’red and he was murdered by *he same persons 9n 31 Juiy 200g He further argued that the act of the respondents Is Dunrshabie under $ectlons 119 and 217 of the IPC However Since the $tate did not enuuire into the matter on reoorts of the aooetlant for registration of the aforesaid offence: surtable directions may be Issued to respondent No 1 in this reoard G5. Heard teamed counsei for the appeitant: perused the avermen’ts in the writ petition as aiso the documents annexed with the petition. 06. indisputablv on the report o’r the petitioner offence was registered against Six accused persons and charge sheet has already been filed showing two of them absconding and triai is pending before the teamed Additional Sessions Judge. G7. So far as urievance of the petitioner that no action was taken'on his earlier reports aoainst the miscreants is concerned from perusal of the petition itself it is eVident that on the first report crime was registered aoainst five accused persons under Sections 147 294 and 506 of the IPC and smce the contents of the subsequent report did not disciose commisSion of anv competent Court for redressal of their grievances Vide Annexures P/2 and PM. For orosecution of a oubiic servant under bectrons 119 and 21 7 of the IPC the necessarv incredients are that he did or omitted to do some public duty to prevent such offence as such public servant and intentionally facilitated the commission of offence. 08. The question, whether respondents No. 2 to 5 intentionally did not take anv action on the complaints of the complainants, cannot be gone into in a writ proceeding as the same would reduire a factual enquiry The same can be in a orcoerlv constituted criminal complaint before the competent criminal Court On the baSis of mere allegation of the father that his son was murdered on account of inaction of respondents No 2 to 5 as they faited in their duties to take appropriate prohibitorv oroceedinos on his sons complaints aoainst the named accused persons direction cannot be issued to the State for filing charoe sheet under Sections 119 and 217 of the IPL againstthem. cognizable offence the complainants were advised to aoproach the