Manoj Kumar Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(Cr.) No. 61 of 2017

1. Manoj Kumar Pandey S/o Late Bajrang Pandey, Aged About 48 Years R/o Bada Bazar, Chirmiri, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs (Police), New Raipur, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Director General Of Police, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Inspector General Of Police, Range Koriya, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh)

4. Superintendent Of Police, Koriya, Civil & Revenue District Koriya, (Chhattisgarh)

5. District Magistrate, Koriya, Civil And Revenue District Koriya (Chhattisgarh)

6. Station House Officer, Police Station Chirmiri, Civil And Revenue District Koriya, (Chhattisgarh)

7. Keshav Prasad Sonkar, S/o Late Puran Sonkar, Aged About 46 Years R/o Bada Bazaar, Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawa, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh)

8. Vaishnav, S/o Sadhuram, Aged About 60 Years R/o Kapoor Singh Dafai, Chhota Bazaar, Chirmiri, Post Chirmiri, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For the Petitioners :

Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate.

For the Respondent/ State :

Shri Neeraj Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

ORDER

21.07.2017 1.

Heard.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the reply given by the State, First Information Report has been registered against

Respondents No.7 and 8 and after investigation a charge-sheet has been filed for trial of offence under Section 4 of The Chhattisgarh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Valon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). He also submits that the respondent/ State has not charge-sheeted Respondents No.7 and 8 for offences under Sections 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code whereas the petitioner and the witnesses have given such statement constituting such offences, in the investigation. 3.

As per statement made by counsel for the petitioner, if there is evidence on record of the criminal proceedings against Respondents No.7 and 8 which constitutes offences under Sections 384 and 506 of the IPC, in that case the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the trial court and pray for framing of charges against Respondents No.7 and 8. Hence, for these reasons, nothing remains for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4.

With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nimmi