Amit Singh Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPCR No. 462 of 2018 Amit Singh Thakur, S/o Late Shri Kunwar Singh Thakur, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Parijaat Extension, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2.

Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3.

Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4.

Superintendet of Police Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5.

Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur (C.G.) 6.

Vaibhav Jain, S/o Vimal Chand Jain, Aged About 41 Years. 7.

Vimal Chand Jain, S/o Maniklal Jain, Aged About 64 Years. Both are R/o Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.) 8.

Arun Singh Thakur, S/o Late B.S.Thakur, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Malay Shrivastava & Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Adv.

For State/ res. 1 & 5 :

Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Govt. Advocate.

For Respondent No. 8 :

Mr. B.P. Sharma & Mr. Raza Ali, Adv.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 08/07 /2021 1.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for registration of FIR against respondent No. 6 to 8 with following relief:- "10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 5 to register the offence in pursuance of written report of the petitioner dated 21.07.2018."

2.

During pendency of this writ petition, the State has filed return in which, it has been categorically stated in paragraph No. 2, which reads as under:-

"2.

That, on the basis of written complaint dated 21.07.2018 made by the petitioner, FIR as Crime No. 866/2018 has already been registered in the Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur. That, after registration of FIR as Crime No. 866/2018, the prayer sought in the instant petition has become infructuous and hence the present writ petition has also become in-fructuous and the same is liable to be dismissed."

3.

In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, as the grievance of the petitioner has already been resolved, the instant writ petition has become infructuous.

4.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun