SBSS '^ T c^'ltfrf2- '-S} BENGH BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.IONO. Z^ ^9 / 2010 PETITIONER ^_ RESPONDENTS :1. A'?-"' /' ,°y / .^/ /\ / ,e&^ c^y 2. 3. 4. Deepak Kumar, S/o Shri Shankar Lal Soni,, aged about 29 years, resident of Gurunank Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Home (Police), D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Superintendent of Police, Distriet- Durg (C.G.) Thana In-Charge, Police Station, City Kotwali, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) Vasudeo Singl^_ Pulsatya, S/o Late Kaptan Lal,s;^Fesident of Thakurtola, Tehsil-Chhuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^ ./.^ '^./ ^' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA •^' ^,. ^ ji.-I.J HIGHeOURtOFCHHA'TTISGARHsBILASFCrR S.B. : HON»BLBSHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA. J. Writ Petttion (Ct No.2632 of 2010 PETmONER Deepak Kumar RESPONDENTS Veysus Sts.teofCUhQ.ttisgarhandOrs. Petition-u/Article226oftheConstitutioaofIndia Appesu'ance: Snit. Fou2iaMirza, ccrim Shri Shashank Thakyr, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3. None for respondent No.4 though served. ORAL-ORDER (Passedon 27.4.2011) Heard. 2. This petition tlas been filed t»y fhe petitjk>ner for issuance of direction to respondent- State autliorities to take action against respondent No.4 on the report lodged by ttie petitioner and also to restrain respondent No.4 from taking pQssession of the shop premises. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction to police authorities to investigate fhe matter by an officer of the mnkofD.S.P. 3. It is fhe case ofthe petitibner ttiat the petitioner is owner and title holder pf the shop No.34 situated at Farishta Complex, Durg, Block N0.45-C, having an area 197 sq.ft. It is alleged that respondent No.4 issued a pTC)clamation declaring himself to be owner and in possesskm of the aibresaid shpp, wtiereupon, fhe ^^sSi^^^^^ ^^^^"1 /C^i WT^ :-..^^^ fr" ;x:.. -2- petitioner, apprehendmg dispossession by use of crimmal force, lodged a report fhat respondent No.4 may proceed to dispossess the petitioner. It is furtfaer submitted that the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No.4-A/2009 in the Court of 9th AddiUonal District Judge, Durg for grant of declaration and pennanent mjunction and the smt was decreed vide judgment dated 5.3.2010 (Aruiexure P-8), But, even thereafter, respondent No,4 is indulged in Ulegal and crimmal activity and made attempt in the midnight of 11.5.201Q to demolish the shop wifh fhe help of various machiaes etc, and even though report was lodged/no action has been taken. Thereafter, respondent No.4 has initiated construction on the same premises. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and title holder of the shop and there is a decree in his favour. Even tiien, respondent. No.4 is indulged in crtminal activities and though various reports were submitted m the police station, proper action is not being taken against him. She also submits that the petitioner is entitied to appropriate police protection against the criminal actMties of respondent No.4, which is not betng provided. 5. Oti the other hand, leamed counsel for fhe State, referring to the averments made in the return, submits that on the report of the petitioner^ detailed enquiry was made by a senior poUce officer of the rank of C.S.P. under Crime No.295/10 and offence under Section 427 & 448 of the IPC was registered. Thereafter, upon «""*''"^ ^••',^.^ •^"y^^^ ?";^.. iil^'-L..--;€lJ?:^< i V3$] '%^. ^K/ ^^.,... ^"^•" -3- ^i- Praveeti [<€ completion ofinvestigatipn, charge sheet has been filed betbre fhe jurisdictional Magistrate and the matter is pending. He further submits fhat the allegations against the police officer that they have extended help and support to respondent No.4 are baseless. 6. Taking into consideration tliat on the report of fhe petitioner, ttie police authorities have taken action and filed charge sheet before the Magistorate for prosecution under Sections 427 & 448 of ti.ie IPC, no furfher direction in that regard is needed. However, if the petitioner feels that respondent ought to be charge-sheeted for commission of offence under otlier provision of IPG, he is at Uberty to take recourse to remedy as may be available to her under fhe provision of Cr.P.C. 7, As far as remedy against respondent Na4 is concerned, the petitioner is at Uberty to take appropriate proceedmgs, in case it is alleged fhat the respondent No.4 is mterfenng with fhe possession despite there betng a decr^ ofpermanent injunction in favour of the petitioner. 8. Leamed counsel for fhe State submitted that the admmistration and the police, is committed to protect a citizen and as and when the petitioner lodges any reporfc, fhe same would be enqutred into in accordance with law, no further orders is required to be passed in fhat regard. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^