High Court Of ChhattisgarhCRMP/66/2017disposed off

Virendra Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-03-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 66 of 2017 • Virendra Pandey S/o Late Shri Brij Bihari Pandey, Aged About 66 Years, R/o 31/ 666, New Shanti Nagar Colony, Post & Police Station Shanti Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary , Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bahwan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Senior Superintendent Of Police SP Office, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Gainda Ram Chandrakar S/o Shri Arjun Lal Chandrakar, Aged About 56 Years, Joint Director Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Abhudhay Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Aditya Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 09/03/2017

1. Heard.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents-authorities to complete investigation as soon as possible and submit final report in FIR No. 273/2009.

3. During pendency of this petition, respondents have completed their investigation and final report (closure) has been submitted before the Magistrate as is evident from Annexure-R/1 along with reply. On last date of hearing, in the order-sheet it was recorded that the reply is not complete and certain additional facts relating to development which subsequently have taken place is not incorporated in the reply. State counsel again prays for time to file additional reply. Today, no additional reply has been filed.

4. The only relief sought was to direct the respondent to complete investigation and file final report under Section 173 of CrPC one way or the other, this is what has been observed earlier also in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 584 of 2016. Therefore, in these circumstances no further orders are required in the matter.

5. Leaving it open to work out the remedy to lodge objection against the closure before the Magistrate where the closure report submitted, this petition is disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Kamde