Jai Prakash Shukla v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 485 of 2011 Jai Prakash Shukla, S/o Late Govind Prasad Shukla, aged about 49 years, R/o Behind Sai Temple, Dangania, College Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Shri Venkateshwar Singh Banafar (Notary), aged about 63, Advocate, R/o Village & Post Thathari, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
3. Station House Officer, Incharge Police Station Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
4. Smt. Vinodini Tandi, Sub Inspector, Police Station Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
5. Shri Niranjan Shrivas, Advocate, Aged about 40 years, R/o Kalmidih, Post Beladula, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
6. Shri Madan Singh Khandey, Advocate, Aged about 42 years, R/o Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
7. Shri R.L. Ratre, Advocate, Aged about 46 years, R/o Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
8. Shri Ayodhya Prasad Chandra, Advocate, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Kanshigarh, Post Kanshigarh, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh.
9. Shivratan Chandra, Son of Awadh Ram Chandra, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village Kalmidih, Post Beladula, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
CRMP No. 486 of 2011 Jai Prakash Shukla, S/o Late Govind Prasad Shukla, aged about 49 years, R/o Behind Sai Temple, Dangania, College Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Shri Venkateshwar Singh Banafar (Notary), aged about 63, Advocate, R/o Village & Post Thathari, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
3. Station House Officer, Incharge Police Station Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
4. Smt. Vinodini Tandi, Sub Inspector, Police Station Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
5. Shri Niranjan Shrivas, Advocate, Aged about 40 years, R/o Kalmidih, Post Beladula, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
6. Shri Madan Singh Khandey, Advocate, Aged about 42 years, R/o Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
7. Shri R.L. Ratre, Advocate, Aged about 46 years, R/o Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
8. Shri Ayodhya Prasad Chandra, Advocate, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Kanshigarh, Post Kanshigarh, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh.
9. Shankarlal Sahis, Son of Samelal, aged about 30 years, R/o Thuthi, Post Thathari, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 10.
Babulal Chandra, Son of Ramsingh Chandra, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Thuthi, Post Thathari, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
11.Liladhar Chandra, S/o Premsingh Chandra, aged about 42 years, R/o Village Malini, Post Salani, Tahsil Jaijaipur, Distritct Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
12.
Rajesh Kumar Chandra, S/o Hiralal Chandra, aged about 50 years, Incharge Assistant Engineer Rural Engineering Services, Block- Lailunga, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :
Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha and Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocates For Respondents :
Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate For State :
Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 01/05/2019
1. These criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been preferred by the petitioner against the orders dated 08/01/2010 and 07/09/2009 respectively passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.
2. Mr. Parganiha and Mr. Agrawal, learned counsels for the petitioner submit that in both of these criminal miscellaneous petitions, closure report has been prepared by the concerned police station after finding no evidence against the petitioner but it has not been produced before the Judicial Magistrate and therefore, direction be issued to them to submit the closure report before the Judicial Magistrate.
3. Mr. Shrivastava, learned State counsel submits that if that be so, the closure report will be filed before the Jurisdictional Criminal Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
5. Be that as it may, State authorities are directed to file the closure report with regard to the petitioner, if any, in accordance with law before the Jurisdictional Criminal Court expeditiously.
6. With the aforesaid direction, both the criminal miscellaneous petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet