High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPCR/204/2016dismissed

Sushant Kumar Behera v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-08-31Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra3 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPCR No. 204 of 2016 • Sushant Kumar Behera S/o Banbihari Behera, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Khaliyapani, Police Station Junagarh, District Kalahandi ( Odisha) ---- Petitioner

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Chowki, Nawagarh, Police Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Petitioner Mr. Mohammad Afroz Athar, Advocate For Respondent/State Mr. UNS Deo, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 31/8/2016

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to forthwith release him and pay adequate compensation.

3. The petitioner had earlier preferred an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") before the VI Additional Sessions

Judge, Raipur, which has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 26.07.2016 (Annexure P/1).

4. It is argued that since there is no FIR against the petitioner and there is no complainant in this case, the petitioner has been wrongly detained by the Police, therefore, he deserves to be released.

5. Once the petitioner has invoked the Sessions Court's jurisdiction under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., he should have availed the remedy available to him under Section 439 itself by moving the application before the High Court.

6. In the order passed by the Sessions Court, it is mentioned that Istgasa No.01/2016 has been registered at P.S. Mainpur District Gariyaband, wherein, the Police has found that the petitioner being driver of the Truck No.C.G 07 C 3145 was found transporting iron rods and tin sheet from Devbhog (Orissa) to Chhattisgarh and when intercepted, he was not found to have any lawful document authorising him to transport the said goods. The Police suspected that the goods are stolen goods, therefore, Istgasa has been registered for the offence under Section 379 of IPC. Thus, it cannot be said that the no offence has been registered against the petitioner.

7. In the considered opinion of this Court, this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as the petitioner has remedy before this Court itself under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, as not maintainable. Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Shyna