Smt. Rashmi Nanda v. State Of Chhattisgarh
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPCR No. 465 of 2017 Smt. Rashmi Nanda, W/o. Mohamad Arif Rokadia, Aged About 42 Years, Assistant District Prosecution Officer, Office Of Public Prosecution Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Collector, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
3. Director General Of Police, Chhattisgarh, Police Head Quarter, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Inspector General Of Police, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
5. The Superintendent Of Police, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
6. The Station House Officer, City Rudri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
7. Arun Dewangan, Working as Assistant Grade-III in Establishment Section, Office Of The Deputy Director Prosecution, District Court Compound, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
8. Umesh Singh, Working as Assistant Grade-III in Establishment Section, Office Of The Deputy Director Prosecution, District Court Compound, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
9. Manoj Sinha, Working as Assistant Grade-III in Establishment Section, Office Of The Deputy Director Prosecution, District Court Compound Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :
Smt. Renu Kochar, Advocate For State/ Respondents :
Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Govt. Advocate No.1 to 6 .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 13.11.2017 Heard 1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was working as A.D.P.O. was transferred from Dhamtari to Jashpur. Thereafter, she was on leave and when she went to extend her leave, she found a letter dated 15.09.2017 (Annexure P-1) which is signed by the Collector but was on the letter head of Deputy Director Prosecution, Dhamtari; therefore, false document
was prepared at the behest of the respondent No.7, 8 & 9 who are working in the office of the Deputy Director Prosecution and when no FIR was registered, this petition has been filed. 2.
Perusal of the letter dated 15.09.2017 (Annexure P-1) appears to have been signed by the Collector, Dhamtari. It is on the letter head of Deputy Director Prosecution Dhamtari. The State or Collector has not made any complaint as has been informed by the State counsel. It is at the behest of the petitioner who says that the signature of the Collector was wrongly obtained, which is not complained by Collector. If the Collector defrauded in the like nature, it is for the Collector to make suitable report, simply because the letter head was of Deputy Director Prosecution Dhamtari and signed by the Collector, it cannot be presumed that the Collector's signature was forged specially when the Collector himself has not disputed the same.
3.
In view of the above, no case is made out to invoke the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petition appears to be devoid of any substance and accordingly it is dismissed at the threshold. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Ashok