^i. ~A IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. ^^ /2011 PETITIONERS ^.tsj^r::i ^•^^•SK^ ^r..^^ RESPONDENT 1. Bhaiyalal S/o Chattardhari, Caste Rajwar, aged about 60 years. 2. Urmila Bai W/o Late Ragamsai, Caste Rajwar, aged about 33 years. Both R/o village Sarbhoka, P.S. Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Baijnath S/o Lagan Sai, aged about 55 years, Caste Rajwar. 2. Smt. Suraj Kumeu- W/o Lalman, aged about -30 years, Caste Rajwar. 3. Srat. Bigni w/o Baijnath, aged about 50 years. 4. Sundasai s/o Mansai, aged about 60 years, caste Rajwar. 5. Ramprasad s/o Dakhal Sai, aged about 50 years, Caste Rajwar. 6. Nandlal s/o Sukhan, aged about 50 years, Caste Rajwar. All r/o village Sarbhoka, P.S. Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.) 7. Station House Officer, Patna, District Koria, (C.G.) CRIMINAL MISCLLANEOUS PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE P.s- ^\ Cfrkk-^ -y—^ (tHC—78 '< a^T^I^TOi' ^W3n^r%l%q5- '\ 7^r "^I^M'4, ®Tiiy-i|S,ietdiy^ C:'r.^.P-f^.^^L(/^\ 31T^?I '^V ('^&^^f) TOnw^fefsn^r TOrfWft^ WTCff <fft^ TfSR^R ^•3?RpT3ii^r SB : Hon'ble Shn Manindra Mohjan Shrivastava. J. 30-11-2011 Shri A. K. Shukla, counsel f{)r the petitioners. Shri A. K. Prasad, counsel flsr respondents No.1 to 6. Shri Vaibhav Goverdh|an, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.7. Heard. The report dated 30-09-^011 has been received from the I. Affidavit of the concerned Station )e learned State Counsel, has also District & Sessions Judge, Kores House Officer, represented by tt] been fited. The case of the petitioners) is that even though, the Magistrate had directed registration ofcase,|the police has neither registered the FIR nor submitted any report befcjre the Magistrate. On the other hand, learnei submitted that the pplice had alr^ Sl counsel for respondents No.1 to 6 •ady submitted a report dated 21-01- 2010 in the Court of Judicial l^agistrate First Class, Baikunthpur, District Korea. Learned State counsel relierring to the averments made in the affidavit and the documents afjpended thereto, submitted that the concerned Police Officer had ^ubmitted enquiry report before the Magistrate on 21-01-2010. j Taking into CQnsiderationjthatin the order sheets recorded by the Magistrate, in which,it was ^ibserved that the report hasnot been submitted, this Court had called for a report from the concerned Court f a-HC—78 ?^B^llTTO- wiTan^igTRw <^ ^ 'ysi -^iAfiM^ •^tfhn?', feroy 3^T^i-(^f3SI^(I) TCiim^fteraii^r and after perusal of the report,i submitted on 21-01-2010 beforel ^t 200 ^N?rit;[ wraf <f fe^ Tfsn?R ^•atlOTan^r it is found that the report was the concerned Court. The report further states that the concerned pourt Reader did not bring it to the notice of the Presiding Officer, cjue to which, order sheets did not mention regarding submission c|f report and on account of that, observations were being made tl|iat report has not been submitted. The report submitted before the (pourt also shows that though, there was a direction by the Court tc} register case, the poljce did not register case and submitted report. From the affidavit of the cohcerned Police Officer, it is revealed that FIR was registered under Qrime No.77/2008 in the concerned Police Station, however, the polic|e while registering crime on the FIR lodged before it, did not make afiy of the respondents No.1 to 6 as accused in the case and inve^tigation has been conducted and charge sheet has also been fi|ed in the Court subsequently. As respondents No.1 to 6 were not|made accused, the petitioners have filed a complaint before the Magi^trate by stating that the respondents No.1 to 6 were also involved injthe alleged commission of offence, and therefore, they are atso tiafcjle to be impteaded as accused. On 23-07-2009, the learned Magi^trate directed the police of Police Station Patna to register FIR Material on record including the ?gainst the respondents No.1 to 6. jaffidavit as also the report dated 30- 09-2011 shows that though, the( case has been registered again^ Police conducted some enquiry, no t respondents No.1 to 6. Submission of learned counsel for respondefits No.1 to 6 that the Magistrate was aa^^ XE-HG—7i ITSf '^s^Mtf, giiiwits, [stctiy^ ^200 afl^T-qSRi- (Tp^ET) f^S^S^W vasfSss-Ks^ sfsa.sn^r -3>' not justified in directing the policje to register offence against the respondents No.1 to 6, as in the ci no material against the responden this petition, as this Court is n< validity of the order dated 23- Magistrate. In these circumstances, this 07-2009 and conduct investiga Police Station was submitted, but ^nfepfrr-EipTCif if fesj-^n^re ^sifinsn^r (cumstances of the case, there was (s No.1 to 6,cannot be examined in |t examining the correctness and P7-2009 passed by the learned petition is finally disposed off with a direction that the police shall r^gister case as per order dated 23- on in the matter in respect of respondents No.1 to 6. From the report dated 30-Q9-2011, it prima facie appears that the report dated 21-01-2010 pr^pared by the police of concerned he same was not placed before the Presiding Officer. The District Ju^lge, Korea shall hold enquiry in the matter and fix responsibility 49ainst the person (Officer/Clerk) responsible for the said act and sjiall take appropriate action. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava