Slngie IN THE HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Criminal Misc. Petition No. t^'^^' /2010 2-fe ? c\ PETITIONER Applicant: Dulari Bai Dadsena, W/o Late Omprakash, aged about 43 years, ^\V^...-'^\iS. Occupation House wife, R/o •»*»T 'y'''''^8'^'o ^r''' Amarpuri Chowk Sunder Nagar, ^.•-""'-^ •"yS:^-'"\^ . n^:. v •?- 1%'.-' Resppndents Non-Applicant ,.<A y^' \^ Raipur [C.G.] VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary for Home Department [Secretariat] D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur [C.G.] Superintendent of Police Durg, District Durg [C.G.j Station House Officer, Police Station Utai, District Dur? [C.G.] Yoovraj Singh Bisen, S/o Not Known Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Utai, District Durg [C.G.] Sardar Shabbir Khan, S/o Mohd. Basir Khan, Aged about 40 years, R/o Ghughwa Bhilai -3, Police Station Bhilai 3, District Durg [C.G.] Toman Singh, S/o Tal Singh, aged about 66 years, R/o Pahandor, Police Station Utai, District Durg [C.G.] 2- 7 8 10 11 »,. 12 13 ^i-iAi'.'-^-. .••f'~:v :'.s;si':'^':.. .-,?',"'>^"~-"-,-y'~s 14 U ACrf '< '^ %A*S^ ^-.^. f> .••^^•^•^^^••"'y/ •^.fKSSf'Sy' 15 Kumar Singh, S/o R.D. Singh, aged about 43 years, R/o 18-A- Street-22 Sector-2, Bhilai, District Durg [C.G.] Rakesh Jain, S/o Late S.M.Jain, aged about 45 years, R/po E.W.S. 323, Vaishali Nagar Bhilai, District Durg [C.G.] Kanhaiya Lal Verma, S/o Late Bhunu Verma, aged about 50 years, R/o Pahandor, Police Stadon Utai, District Durg [C.G.] Santosh Singh, S/o R.N. Singh, aged about 48 years, R/o Ashish Nagar Rishali Bhilai, District Durg [C.G.] Moulana Saiyad Jafar Ali, S/o Saiyad Jafar Ali, aged about 46 years, R/o Near Jahaj Building Vishwakarma Bhawan Ramnagar, Supela Bhilai District Durg [C.G.] Sarika Jain, W/o Amit Jain, aged about 34 years, R/o Shanti Nagar, Near Jain Mandir Kohka Bhilai, District Durg [C.G.] Chhabilal, S/o Budhiyar, aged about 57 years, R/o Jamrao, Post Jhit, Police Station Patan, District Durg [C.G.] Rupram Verma, S/o Jagdish Verma, aged about 61 years, R/o Ganiyari Post Pahandor, Police Station Utai, District Durg [C.G.] Rajendra, S/o Bhukhan Maihar, aged about 43 years, R/o Ganiyari, Post Pahandor Police Station Utai, District Durg [C.0.1 -A J 16 Banau, S/o Hiralal, aged about 66 years, R/o Pahandor, Police Station Utai, District Durg [C.G.] 17 Rekhram Verma, S/o Raja Ram Verraa, aged about 41 years, R/o Pahndor, Police Station Utai, District Durg [C.G.] [Respondents No.5 to 17 are accused persons] APPLICATION U/S 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE S^KING DIRECTION BY THIS HON'BLE COURT OF LODGING OF F.I.R. TO_THE RESPONDENT N0. 3 & 4 i.e. STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF POLICE STATION UTAI AND CONCERNED A.S.I. YUVRAJ SINGH BISEN DISTT. DURG XI-HC-78 '.^r. ^5ET"<4101tt«,t))Tll'd<K»,Rril'My'i ^g,^^....£A.n:ft.^....2,a^|^,. STT^ST q=R? (>jc|i^c|<g) sii^STcRrR-iicb ci2)ian^?Tdi«i s^aTSR^Tflaaii^CT <pi<i[CT<ni *iiinV*ffei<SI •(lul+^K ^) 9fR|t| 3II^?T S.B.: HON'BLE JUSTICE MRt PRmNKER counte for the petitioner. Pane! Lavvyer for ihe State. rttng Officer is aiso p:'esent in j Shri Abhay Tiwan, Shri Pankaj ShrivasSaya| Shri Y.S. Bisen, tnvestic^att Counse! for the State st|bmits that during the course of the day, hewil! file his affidavit. List the matter for final rjearing tomorrow i.e. 06.05.202Q. Sd/- Judge '•K':' ^f?,^^^1 -^t^i- *<l*1dl ?SW vj-cc|^|«|d<l,u>-^<'<ls>t61«l'«3'< ^i%M^6;..^^o;lO. ^. ^20 SII^TWTR'll* i|2ITaiiS<in>iitB ' .•*;- aii^ST qa^ (yifgi-s) 3.8.: HON'BLE JUSTICE h S-Q5-2G10: Sflri Abhay T'warh'cbi Shrl Psnksj Shnvssts^ P'essnt cettion w:i! 2.4e'20"0. 284/2010, 289/20)10 and 290/2010 ass 1" Cr.MP.Nos. 284' prayer hss been maae to ri counssl for t^e petitioners revtew in the Code of Crimlrl ,s the respdnde'ntsto act in acj a'so deciaed a!6ng with the ^ fn'a'i thess Detnions, hsve f';ec separats 8pp;'c Ciass:' Paten. DisT"ict Durg Cnmius' P'ccecure for n respondsr'tsfortis offsnce 471..i.06^993na t2Q-B?34c <i>iqfn<i1i*ii*toT.ifls'^ltRttsi'< ^aiKl*i<>i!S*( R. PRITINKER OIWAKER insei for the getrtioners. I'^.^^.oi < n^,, ,/^f ^.^.^ ^,fc-,.n "'+^-.Si" .•"'".:'': ^d, r'sii^ Lcwyer fur iHs ^iS[c. .^ :, . oovern the 'JISDOSS' of' Cr.M.P. .Ncs 2010. 289/2010 & 290®.)00thouan ?ne scaii the or<jerdated932DW; however, i.ubmits that as there is no provision for a' Procedure, he is not orassina t!"!° same re'ref 6uf 'n thelsraer Inter'fest of 'ust;cs^ cisrection msv-Ge 'ssued to- cordance witii 'aw and thase oetmons bs ;therpetit;08s. e Qnevsnce of tne petitione-s is that tr'sy' a'Kons before Judicjs! Maciistrate, Fsrst ui-de' S&ctio" 156 ?3) of s Cotie of igistration of t!ie offence agslnst tna & uncer Sections 41S,.420, ^67,468,469, ' ftheindisn PsnaiCode. : • . • 1 XI^G^S •i^i.. \JTO| ^l^lldy, u-Awic, Roitiy *l 1*101 ^BW 3II^?[WlR'l <rai3ti^na5tiw 3ir^?rvw (i?ig^) W120 s??iisi7flfS(i3n^?r -2-- According to the petitl 'earned Kflaalst'ate on 8.2.' invest'aate the mster but t:ii cicne nor ths F.'.R. has b-ee'1 has a'so been prayed by th^ respondents No. 1 & 2 rriay fcl enau"'v aaa^nst the ressond1 petit'onsrs havs a'sg maoe o*f;cers regarding demar'd of Pnr^ti^nt t^ th<a rf(rprk.'f'i ', <'J^i-:/t.< ^ <,^' <,t i'-u^ l^; J •tu-^/^ -A.,..-^""" — Counsei h^s fi'ea an afficisvit been soec'Tice',!v cien'ed bv fr crf time-any bribs g-nount wa; stated that prior to locsaing o' cases, responden'ts narnsiy Rajendra Msha1' filed an sp; Code of Criminal Procedur '.12.2009. Entertainina the s <bWlri^-l *flMriT^"Vs'SitVwcyt ^e •DKlH SII^ST loners. directions were 'ssued bv trie $010 and 5.3.2010 to the poiice to Idate nelther tha investiagtior hss been rea'istersd against the resooncents. It petitioners in aSi tls pet'tions ti'a; ?ne ts ciirscted for initiatlna e ciepsnmentai bnts No 3 & 4. In tneir Detitlons tfse ce-ta"- ailegations sga'nst the poiice tirise for rea'strafon of tne F.'.R. lon Qi'v'en bv thls Court, iearned State t)f the investiaatina officer in which it has ie investigating Offic.er ti-at at any po'nt i dsmandsd by him. It has been Turttier the report bv the petrtioners In ail ths 'Rooo Ram Verma, Sanau Gond snti D'icstion uncisr Section 155 f3' ot the ^ before the iearned Maoistrgte on a'd aDonca~;on on ^.12.2009 a'rect'ons XI-H vsvq ^ttiwvw, wa\w[<»,Rnitiyt IIICTI ?RW aii^STwR-li* ?raiaii^?id>*ii* 3TI^?I tR^ ('i^fg^RS) ^20 s^iriiR^iftaaii^aT -3 were issued by the learned submit the f'nal report. It has that based on this d'rection the'F.i.R. was registsred ags and the matter is lindsr 'nve by the State counsel that coui fiied appiications under Secti' on 8.2.2010 and 26.2.2010 a the ontv dirsction which vras v/as to investigs.te the matter. "•^gYate counse! submits 8.2.2010 on the complaint of] Dularibai and Santosh, inve^ submitted on 23.2.2010 bef^ < was not accepted because t| not recorded and were not !» submitted that these statem^ comp'ainapts 'were not trace^ cniqfCT<I1t *ll*toT^"f^Q 'lRM^S'l ^s <)fKl*< SII^OT IMsgistrats to reaister ths offence and been contended by the Stste Counse! 4T the !earned Magistrate, on 5.12.2009, ^"st the petitloners in al! ths five cases fetlgat'on. It has further besn contendeti |d be ss a counter b'ast, pef'tiQners have fcn 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Mag'strats i|id while entertaining these sppltoations, Issued to the Station House Offlcer, Utai |that pursuant to the directlon issued on petitioners Daneshwar Prasad Sharma, fetiaat'on was dons and the report was ire the learned Maa'strate but the same tl|ie statements of the complainants w&re lattachsd with ths reoort. !t has been bts could not be recorded because the bie. State counsel submits that this fect \dw| »<<iqi«<<,t?-altf<l<»,Rrtl'«y<< *11*1CTI 'SW 311^9113?! (4clijcl<d) ^20 3ii^?iwiR'ii<t> (raTsn^iTtBiitp B^IT8R^lfef3IT^?I -4- was also mentioned in the bearing No. 997/2010. He sufc these three complainants i] Dularibai and Santosh are i of these petit'oners but as th|f J-' cou!d ^not be recorded anfl -^' invest'gated. Looking to this, c|! to these petitloners under .^ <ni<lI<l<Ill *filoT't"fal3 •(luitsit ^aiRlian^T Rojnamcha Sanha dated 23.3.2010 Im'ts that as soon as the statements of lameiy Daneshwar Pra.sad Sharma, •ecorded, the report would be aga'n int Court. !n resDect of the como'aint of submitted before the Compet' petitioners nameiy Ashwani Ki|iniar Dadhsena and Mamta Dadhsena, it has been araued by the Stjate counse! that on 5.3.2010 direction was issued by the Maglstrate) 8.3.2010 and 1.5.201 0, the efftirts were made to record the statement to investiaste the matter. !n between |y are not. traceab'e, their statsments the matter couid not be further n 7.4.2010 summons were aiso issued ection 160 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure, to be served throifeh thsir !ocal advocates but even then they are not turning up and tl^ concerned Advocate has repiied that these petitioners are not in topch wlth may be issued to them direct!} on the basis of comDlaint wlth hm and, therefore, the sams ^. State counse! further submlts that as bf ROOD Ram Verma. Banau Qond /c"f\ l /i)%A i . -'..A."%8 J W-HG-T&^ ,/ '•-'^^fS^^' 3wT'«i«iw^,»-a1wi<B,Rwwy ^b *ll*l»l^TT^ gn^ST qa^ (l?^3ER?) W(.20 3II^?Tq?I R-11* cI2IT3I1^?rd>*ficb s^TriR^ifteraii^sT and Rajendra Mehar, case| petitioners, they are avoiding| be because of their apprehetsion police. However, unless t^e authorities and submit a!l thel the pollce to submit the complrance of the order datei| 1 have heard counsel avaitable on record. 1 find no force in the ^ '-A-l-^^ • ^^-^ dirediions is issued by the rt the police is bound to regjsl^r investigation can be done In the case in hand, t)|ie learned Magistrate to the p\ pursuant to that, sincere investiaate the matter. If the| they are oblige to foilow lega <i>i<ifn<I1l iifnV'Tfe^Q tluit5;it ^siRftan^if has been reaistered aaainst afi the their appearance before tne Poiice, may isiors that tley mlaht be arrested by the e petitioners come before tne po'ice documents before them, it Is difficuSt for report before tesrned Magist'ate in j 8.2.2010and 5.3.2010. for the parties snd perused tne material jrgument of tle petitioners thet once the 1/lagistrate to investigate the mattsr then )er the offence and without the same no only direction wh'ch wss given by the !ice v-'as to 'nvest'iQate the matter and efl'orts have been msde by the potice to petitioners are interested to get just;ce, Drocedure, it is now for ttie petit'one'-s to r sy~":'l!!esi!. & ¥'li ^rh-. !1 ^ e-78-; \jwi "qiqicx^, t»-al<ti<i<»,Rnitiyx ^> 11*fCI!ffSt>*IT<P an^CTW R'fi* ?T2n'<ail^l$P+liq> 3II^9TVW (ticll'i<l<€i) V^20 co-operate with the police. relevant documents before themselves for recording th police to investigate the ma' Under Section 156?f5) of the Code of CRminal Procedure, |stified in issuing direction to tne police for ^nd it is not incumbent on the psrt of the iml|nediately register the F.1.R. If sfter At this stage, it has that the petitioners are w'l wi!l make themseives av4 would ateo produce al! t^i petitioners wiil present ther|iselves 15 days from the receipt o1| relevant documents. q>i<<r<»<ni<ii*inT^"V^Q•(RI'^I'! ^'afRl*! 3II^%I !f the petitioners do not produce alt the fhe poiice authorities snci wi!i not present ^ir statements, it would be difficult for the Rer. learned Magistrate is fu!ly ji investigation of the matter police authorities to iml|nediately investigation the police corfie to the conclusion thst the offenoe has "beeftcomm'tted by any of under the law would fo!iow. the respondents, the action ss requ'red been araued on behalf of the petHioners ll|ig to co-operate in the investigation, they (ilabls before the police authoritles and relevant documents. He submits that before the police authorities within copy of this order and wi!! produce al! the 1 .^ Xft-10-78 / dwi '«i<^irt<t,»-atwi<B,Rrtitfyt 3^ ii«ioia^TT^ sn^?r iRcp (^fgs^) ^20 SIltSTqiTR'titb wiTsiT^sTgffira? D/- S^ITSR^ifer SII^CT -7- Be that as it may, it is u^ they want to co-operate in th^ appear before the lnvestigatir(g recorded and jnvestigating cfficer wil! proceed with the case in accordance with law. With the above obsen/atjons, the petitions stand dlsposed^L Sd/- q>i<ifCT<I)i «ii*i»Tit"^Q <(uit$it ^? oiKll .ail$<l to petitioners to tiecide as to whether investigation or not. !f the petitioners Officer, their statements wouid be Judge