← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhCRMP/427/2017dismissed

Lakesh Kumar Chandradev v. State Govt. Of Chhattishgarh

2017-07-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 427 of 2017 Lakesh Kumar Chandradev S/o Shri B.R. Chandradev, Aged About 29 Years Ex-Assistant (CRA), State Bank Of India, Regional Office Jagdalpur, C.G. R/o Bimleshwari Colony Behind R.K. Jims, Borsi, Durg, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Govt. Of Chhattishgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Police Station Rakhi, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Superintendent Of Police, Dantewada, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.

3. Police Station Incharge, Police Station Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For the Petitioner :

Shri Shantanu Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondent/ State :

Shri Ashish Shukla, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

ORDER

28.07.2017 1.

Heard.

2.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the First Information Report has been registered against the petitioner in P.S. Dantewada for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on the information given by the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Dantewada through Rajendra Prasad Yadav, alleging in it that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was fraudulently withdrawn from the account of one Chameli Bai. A compromise has been entered with Chameli Bai. Hence, on this basis the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be admitted and inherent powers be exercised in favour of the petitioner.

3.

The complainant in the case has not entered into any compromise with the petitioner. Apart from that, it appears that the petitioner had been an employee of the concerned Branch of State Bank of India, who is alleged to have forged papers of withdrawal for withdrawing the amount from the account of Chameli Bai. Hence, after perusing the documents submitted and having considered on the allegations made against the petitioner, this petition does not appear to be a fit case to be admitted. Hence, this petition is dismissed at the motion stage.

Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Jamal