•l.-L'l. ^-L'L.I.^-L^^-^-^'I. T-'''---l.'- PETITIONER y.v p^»s» ^- Slngte Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.No. "f)-M^ /2Q11 Jaiprakash Shukla, S/o Late Shri G.P. Shukla, aged about 51 years, Ex. C.E.O. Janpad Panchayat, Jaijaipur, R/o Behind Sai Mandir, '^3^y^TfTl\-.^< •- Daganiya, College Ward, Raipur, ^~(-^""- Tahsil and District- Raipur (C.G.). 1J.—-W Versus RESPQN_DENTS The High Court of Chhaftisgrh, Through : The Registrdr Vigilance, High Court Campus at Bodri, Bilaspur (C.G.) Prabhakar Kumar Gwal, S/o not in the knewledge of the petitioner, presently posted ahd working as Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaijaipur, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) R/o village - Nanakpali, Tdhsil - Saraipali, District - MahasQ, ;.und (C.G.) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS RETITION UNDER SECTlON 4B2 OF THE C_QDE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE !SU 1B /r^ HiQH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BJLASPUR SEngje Beacn: H'on'bie^nr! MaBmwamohanSnrlyastav^J PETITEONER s Jai Prakash Shukla High Court of Chhattisflarh and another FETlTiON UNDER SECTION ^2 OF THE CODE OF O Present: - Shri Satish Chandra Verma, counsei for the petitioner. >th This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been fiied by the petiiioner prayihg- that the compiaint matter and aiiegations of the petitioner against respondent No.2 be directed to be sent for free and rair investigation by an invesiigating agency /' CB! or to anyjudiciai commission. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitied that the respondeni No.2 who is a judiclal ofricer, is highiy biased against the petitioner. it is submitted that respondent No.2, in a Lok Adalat Vidhik Saksharta Committee constituted under the provlsions of Nationai Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 included five advocaies and started invesiigatlng works don®by various authtfrities and he nas registered number or crimlnai cases against me appiicam ana nas tnereoy set criminai iaw in motion in iarge numoer or cases. Learned counse! runner submitted that even though the petitioner at the relevant time white being posted as Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Jaijaipur, was not invoived in any liiega! work, wlthout there being proper sanction for his prosecution as .sy' required under Section 197 CrPC, number of compiaints fiied against the petitioner aiieging commission of ofrsnce have been registered against the petitioner and process warrants issued against the petitioner, detaiis of. which have been given in para 5 of the petition. Learned counsei further submitted that in large number of such cases, chalienglng the order of registration of offence and taklng cognizance as aiso Tor transfer, the petiiloner has aiso fiied various petitions before this Court, details of which have aiso been glven in the petition. He further submits that the petitioner has also prayed before the Sessions Judge for transfemng cases frorn the Court of respondent No.2. Learned counsei further submitied that the petitioner made a compiaint to respondent No.1 for noiaing enquiry on ine aiiegaiion leveiea Dy ine petiiioner against responaent NO:Z ana ror taKing appropnate aiscipiinary action against responaem No.2 on administraiiye side, but his compiaint has not evoked response. Lastiy, it is suDminea mat eariier, a wnt petmon was fited wnicn was permitted to be witnarawn wiin iiDeny to approacn Derore appropnate ^orum in terms of section 482 CrPC. T!'ierefore, now the petitioner has fited this petition. z- 3. The submissions made by learned counsei for the petitloner and the averments made in the petitlon do not show that this petition under Section 482 CrPC is preferred against any particuiar orde.r or any criminai proceedings drawn in any particuiar case agalnst the petitioner. By this petition, me petitioner has not prayed for quashing any criminai case pending before the Courts beiow. imact, aetaiis nave Deen given snowing mat numDer or petrtions concerning various crimina! cases have been fiied by the petitloner before this Court. The pieaa'ngs maa'e in tne petiaon snow mat tne petitioner maae compialnt agalnst respondent No.2 before respondeni No.1 on administratiye side and aggrieved :BA—~f r' by so caiied inaction, this petition 'nas been fiied for issuance of direction to hoid investigation by CBi or by Judiciai Commission. 4. in the considered opinion of this Court, the reiief soughi by the peiitioner in fnis pet'tjon cannot be granted in proceedings under Seciion 482 CrPC. n is not a case where the petitjoner has prayed for quashing any particuiar case or number of criminai case instituted against the peutioner in one or more compiaint case regisiered against him on compiainis made under Seciion 200 CrPC. In essence, v/hat petiiioner seeks through this petiuon is a direction io respondent No.1 on administrative s.ide to hoid enquiry /" discipiinary enquiry against respondeni No.2 alleging that respondent No.2 has misused / abused hfe judic.'al power t>y jnitiating various criminai cases against ine petitioner oy latong cognizance of compiainis filed before him. Such reiief cannot be granted to ths peiitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminai Procedure. &. ihe suDmission of learned counsel for tne petitioner tnat ne nad eariier filed a writ petition which was dismissed with iiberty to file petition under Section 482 CrPC, therefore, now this petition has been nied, also cannot be accepted and made a basis to entertain this petifion. The record ofVv.P.(Cr.) No.671/10 was aiso caiied. The W.P.(Cr.) No.671/10 was fiied by the petifioner seeking quashing of warrant orders passed by the Judida! Magistrats, 1SI Ciass, Janjgir- Champa on various grouna's Inter aiia on ihe ground that respondent No.2 has acted in biased manner in entertaining criminai compiaints and registering cases against him. However, the present petition is for entireiy difrerenf purpose. in this petltion, ths petitioner has not prayed for quashing of those orders which were subject matter of chaiiense in W.P.(Cr.) No.671/10. in the resujt, the pennon niea oy tne petitioner is misconceivea. sss "^ky^ BgSISSS"^ is9Vjy^ r^s^ ^ O"—f <!*sy.>'j ^•'^, ^•^'"^ t?ffVs ^- € 6. Lastiy, iearned counsel for fhe petitioner submits that he may be granted liberty to raise nis grievance in appropriate proceedings. ueepii 7. in the opinion of this Court, no specific liberty is required. The petitioner is ssways at iiberty to taks recourse to remedy as may be avaiiabie to him under the iaw for redressai of grievance, if any. The petition is accordingiy disposed of. Sd/- Manindra MohanShrivastava