High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPCR/485/2018dismissed

Sarja Bai v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-02-26Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPCR No. 485 of 2018 • Sarja Bai D/o Late Guha Ram Chandrakar, wife of Gokul Chandrakar, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Loharsi, P.S. Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Superintendent Of Police, District Durg Chhattisgarh

3. Station House Officer, Police Station Amleshwar, District Durg Chhattisgarh

4. Saras Kumar S/o Guha Ram Chandrakar Aged About 58 Years

5. Basant Chandrakar S/o Bahla Chandrakar, Aged About 40 Years No.4 & 6 are R/o Jamgaon (M), P.S. Amleshwar, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh

6. Yuvraj S/o Gajanand Rajput Aged About 19 Years

7. Chumman Lal S/o Tarachand Dhimar Aged About 18 Years No.6 & 7 are R/o Village Loharsi, P.S. Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh

8. Patwari, Halka No. 16, Village Jamgaon (M), Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 26/02/2019

1. Heard.

2. The present petition is for registration of the FIR with the allegation that despite the report made on 22.03.2018 showing the cognizable offence, the FIR has not been registered.

3. The reply of the State would show that it is stated that after receiving the complaint made by the petitioner, the Station House Officer, Police Station Amleshwar, District Durg enquired into the matter and after recording the statement of the various witnesses along with the petitioner and the victims who were the respondents, are the co-owners of certain property, however, certain sale deed has been executed for which different proceedings before the revenue Courts are pending and it is stated that the offences are civil in nature and no cognizable offence was found after the enquiry.

4. In view of such reply of the State, this Court cannot give a finding of existence of cognizable offence. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may seek appropriate remedy as available to him under the law before the competent Court. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu