Smt. Anita Ramteke v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(CR) No. 446 of 2018 Smt. Anita Ramteke, W/o. Mukesh Kumar Ramteke, Aged About 46 Years, Caste Mahar, R/o. Village Dongargaon, Police Station Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs (Police) New Raipur, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director General Of Police, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Inspector General Of Police, Range Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

4. Superintendent Of Police, Rajnandgaon, Civil & Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

5. District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, Civil & Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

6. Station House Officer, Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

7. Harivivek Dahariya, S/o. Harishchand Dahariya, Aged About 28 Years, R/o. Village Mowa, Police Station Mowa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State :

Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Dy. G.A.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 08.08.2018 Heard 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that report was made to the police by the petitioner that one Harivivek Dahariya has obtained different amount to provide job in the Government Department, however, subsequently it was all found to be forged. 2.

Perused the report Annexure P-1, which appears to have been received by the police on 31.05.2018. Considering the nature of allegations, it appears that prima facie cognizable offence has been reported. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the

Supreme Court in case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2014) 2 SCC 1, since the cognizable offence has been reported, the concerned Police is directed to register the FIR and complete the investigation at the earliest. It is further observed that this Court has not observed anything on merit of this case attributing any allegation to anyone and the investigation officer shall be at liberty to exercise his jurisdiction on the basis of the evidence available to him.

3.

With such observation, the petition stands disposed of. Ashok Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge