Gourishankar Pandey And ORS. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPCR No. 95 of 2014

1. Gourishankar Pandey son of Late Shri R.K. Pandey Aged About 48 Years R/o Dharamjaigarh Police Station Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

2. Mohd. Zahir Ansari S/o Mohd Khaik Aged About 42 Years R/o Mainpat, Kudaridih, P.S. Mainpat, Distt. Surguja C.G.

3. Aasma Begum W/o Tauhit Aged About 42 Years R/o Bagihi Post Office Bahu, P.S. & Distt. Mujaffarpur Bihar ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur C.G.

2. The Superintendent Of Police Raigarh Distt. Raigarh C.G.

3. The Incharge, Crime Branch Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh CG

4. The Station House Officer Police Station Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

5. Amit Patle Incharge Police Station Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

6. Central Bureau Of Investigation Through The Superintendent Of Police Central Bureau Office Bhilai, Distt. Durg. C.G.

7. Balmati Yadav W/o late Shri Ganesh Yadav R/o Kanjinala Dharamjaigarh P.S. Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G. ---- Respondent For Petitioners Mr. Manoj Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. Arun Sao, Dy. A.G.

For Respondent No.5 Mr. Wasim Miyan, Advocate For Respondent No.7 Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board

18/11/2015 Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. (2) The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No.103 of 2014 P.S. Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh with further prayer to direct investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. They have also prayed for grant of compensation to the victims namely Vickey @ Vivek Pandey, Guddu Ansari and Tauhit. (3) The petitioners are neither accused persons in the said crime number nor are the victims of the said incident, therefore, they have no locus to prefer this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(4) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, as not maintainable. However, it will remain open for the persons aggrieved having cause of action in the matter, to maintain a separate petition. Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Shyna