Shamshad Khan v. Smt. Bhumika Sinha

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1633 of 2015

1. Shamshad Khan S/o Sikandar Khan, Aged About 30 Years Occupation Advocate, R/o Ware No. 07, Lalpur Road, Bagbahra, Post & Police Station Bagbahra, District Mahasamund, Civil & Revenue District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Smt. Bhumika Sinha W/o Ramlal Sinha Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bhimkhoj Tahsil Bagbahra, Sarpanch Panchayat Khallari District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).

2. Ramlal Sinha S/o Karla Sinha, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bhimkhoj Tahsil Bagbahra, Panchayat - Khallari District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).

3. Daulal Giri S/o Padum Giri, Aged About 42 Years Secretary Gram- Panchayat Khallari Tahsil Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).

4. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

5. Secretary, Department Of Panchayat Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Office Of The Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)

6. The Superintendent Of Police, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)

7. The Sub-Divisional Officer ( Revenue), Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)

8. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bagbahra District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)

9. The Station House Officer, Police Station Bhimkhoj, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents

For Petitioner.

: Shri Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate.

For Respondents no. 4 to 7 and 9.

: Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate Order On Board 14/09/2015 Heard.

1.

Petitioner's grievance in the writ petition is mainly on account of stated inaction on the part of respondent no. 6 to 9 in taking appropriate action pursuant to registration of crime against respondents no. 1 to 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents no. 1 to 3 while holding public office are alleged to be guilty of committing official irregularities. Though the FIR has been registered, the investigation has not been concluded and the police is not taking up any action. 2.

Learned State Counsel submits that the investigation shall be completed expeditiously and as early as possible and appropriate report shall be submitted before the concerned Magistrate.

3.

In a case where FIR is registered by the police, the investigation has to follow. Moreover, the investigation can not be allowed to remain in conclusive for indefinite time. The investigation is required to be completed and proper report in accordance with law is required to be submitted before the Magistrate by the investigation authority. In the present case FIR was registered as back as on July 2014, that is more than one years has elapsed therefore, in these circumstances the Station House Officer should conclude the investigation expeditiously and as early as possible. 4.

A copy of this Order be sent to the Superintendent of Police Mahasamund. 5.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.

Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Amita