BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. h^'S /2011 APPLICANT Complainant ^s^%:;-^ p{®8®»t .. ;" NON-APPLICANT 1 Smt. Shashikala Agrawal, D/o Late Bhedilal Agrawal,0wner Laxmi Gudakhu, Aged- 42 Years,R/0-Station Road, Infront of Bhaggu Hotel,Kharsiya,Tah-Kharsiya,Distt.- Raigarh(C.G.) 2. Smt.Bhagwati Devi Agrawal,W/o Late Bhedilal Agrawal, Aged- 42 Years,R/0- Station Road, Infront of Bhaggu Hotel,Kharsiya,Tah-Kharsiya,Distt.- Raigarh(C.G.) VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. 6. 8. 9. 10, State of C.G., through- D.M., Raigarh Station House officer, P.S.-Kharsiya, Distt.-Raigarh (C.G.) Supritendent of Police,Raigarh,Distt- Raigarh(C.G.) Director General of Police, Raipur,Distt. Raipur Chhedilal Agrawal,S/o Bhaniram Agrawal,Age-70 years,R/o- Subhash Chowk, Kharsiya,Distt.-Raigarh Pramod KumarAgrawal,S/o- Chhedilal Agrawal,age-44 years,R/o- Poddar Colony, lane No.4,NearTini tutts School,Khetrajpur,Distt.- Sambalpur(Orissa) Smt.Meena Devi,W/o Pramod Kumar Agrawal, age-40 years,R/o- Poddar Colony, lane No.4,NearTini tutts School,Khetrajpur,Distt.- Sambalpur(Orissa) Ashok Kumar Chhedilal, S/o Chhedilal Agrawal, Age-40 years,R/o- Subhash Chowk, Kharsiya,Distt.-Raigarh Smt. Sushila Devi Agrawal, W/o Chhedilal, Age-65 years,R/o- Subhash Chowk, Kharsiya,Distt.-Raigarh Anjali Agrawal,W/o- Ashok Kumar Agrawal, , Age-40 years,R/o- Subhash Chowk, Kharsiya,Distt.-Raigarh ^l^ fi PETITION U/S 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PRQCEDURE ~r~~ 3)1^1 TI^W WT sn^r *tii<*i ^\ ^Sf "lll^ld<<, 0Tll<-l<l6, fsldl-Hy ('hniAAJ3 - \AJO • 6 8 <8/'i <TR^200 3n^r'<pRi'('^f3^(r) TOiraT^feran^i SB^Hpn'ble ShrLlVlanindraMona 20-10-2011 Shri Amit Sharma, counsel r< Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, Pa| respondent authorities to take imme *l<lii"f<i)-) ll4fff'i[ fsca 'rfai^Tf •^affiPTS^T' n snnvasiava. u'. irthe petitioners. nel Lawyer forthe State / respondent No.1 to 4. Fhis petition has been filed Vy the petitioners for issuance of direction to the diate steps against the respondents 5 to 10. In the alternative, prayer has been m^de to issue directions to learned trial Court to initiate proper enquiry against resplondents 2 and 3 and further order to fiie final report within a stipuiated time. j From the orders passed bv the tria! Court and the documents which have been filed, it is reveaied that the pejiitioners aileging commission of offence moved an application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC before the Judiciat Magistrats, 1 Class, Kharsia, who directed enquii|y to be made. The matter is under investigation and the documents which have be^n piaced on record and the reports submitted by the Sub-Diwsional Ofricer, Polisje, Kharsfa from time to time upto 20/09/2011 show that the matter is under inv^stigation and submitting the progress of the investigation before the Magistrat^, time has been sought by the investigating agency. The Magistrate has aliow|ed time to the investigating agency to submit report. The documents which hav^ been Diaced on record shows that sutetanfrial progress in the investigation has fc|een made and the reasons which have been stated in the applications, cannot i|>e said to be baseiess warranting rejection of prayer for extension of time to fiie 1-eport. Therefore, i do not find any reason at this stage to direct any kind of actjon to be taken against the concerned Station House Officer or the Superintender^ of Poiice. This Court would not interfere with the investlgation at this stage excepf: on exceptiona! circumstances. ^,T"^h?H^-—FS--K.O—2/2U1 i—1,50,000, psi%> ^.A, ^ ..^^' ^•%-/^"' '••ssaf"./ '•<£'.•S?' ^^ 's^1. ^n^nwr, 'gxtorfs, 'fero^? C^^-^^^^^^S^M. 3TR?r •VR; (Tpf^^tr) an^r ^BT i<-ii<<> gqrsn^ianw TCTWHfCT3(!^T --? tlliat it is however observed conciusion one way or the other With the aforesaid observatjons '*-' --; Deepii tl|iat the jnvestigation must be brought to ite e^peditiously and without unnecessary delay. the petition is finaiiy disposed of. Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava •'vf"'- %. ^rqfOT^i tlPWif •i[ •fe<?t ti%R?R ^siRn sii^i :i'!^S'e S'"''yp^sy, ("Si-TRTN—FS/I40—2/2Q' I- •-1.50,000. 41