High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/1851/2018dismissed

Pushpa Nathani v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-09-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1851 of 2018 • Pushpa Nathani, W/o Kannu Nathani, aged about 55 years, R/o in front of Singapur City, Krishna Nagar Kota, Ward No.12, PS Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Though its Secretary, Department of Home and Police Affairs, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, PS and Post Rakhi, District Raipur, CG

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Civil Lines, PS Civil Lines, District Raipur, CG

3. Superintendent of Police, Raipur, PS Raipur, District Raipur (CG)

4. Police Station Saraswati Nagar, through Officer In-charge District Raipur (CG) ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Badruddin Khan, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri AS Kachhawaha, Additional AG.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 04/09/2018 :

1. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents not to visit her house without any notice, summon or warrant.

2. In response, the Station House Officer has filed an affidavit that the petitioner's husband Kannu Nathani @ Ashok Nathani is a known historysheeter of the area against whom several criminal cases were registered. Details of the criminal cases registered against him within different police stations of Raipur and nearby areas are mentioned in the chart Annexure-

A/2 & A/3 and that of his son Manish as Annexure-A/4.

3. It is submitted by learned State Counsel that as and when it is suspected or any report is made to the concerned Police Station, enquiries are made, however, the petitioner or her husband is never harassed in the name of investigation or enquiry. He would submit that the petitioner has not cited any single instance giving particulars as to which policeman or police officer has ever gone to her place at odd hours.

4. Considering the explanation put forth by the Station House Officer, I do not find any substance in this writ petition, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Barve