Suraj Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPCR No. 168 of 2016 Suraj Soni S/o Sita Ram Soni, Aged About 30 Years R/o. Raj Kishore Nagar, Bilaspur, P. S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. Superintendent Of Police, Koria Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

3. Station House Officer, P. S. Manendragarh, District Koria Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

4. Satyanarayan Sonar, Aged About 65 Years R/o C. H. M. Road, Manendragarh, District Koria Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

5. Smt. Raj Kumari Sonar W/o Satyanarayan Sonar, Aged About 60 Years R/o C. H. M. Road, Manendragarh, District Koria Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

6. Smt. Sunita Gupta, Agent Code- 21888 Option- I, Trade And Merchant Tile Private Limited, R/o. Ward No. 20, Ama Kherva Road, Infront Of Universal School, Manendragarh, District Koria Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

7. Option One Trade And Merchantile Private Limited, Through Chief Executive Officer, Corporate Office, Vill. Domju, 2nd Floor, Kacharibari, P.O. Domju, District Howra- 711405 West Bengal, District : Howrah, West Bengal

8. Option One Trade And Merchantile Private Limited, Through R. M. 299, B- 2nd Floor, Orbit Mall, Scheme No. 54, A- B Road, Indore Madhya Pradesh 452001, District : Indore, Madhya Pradesh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Prashant Jayaswal, Senior Advocate with Shri Suresh C. Gupta and Shri Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocates For State/Res.No.1 to 3 :

Shri Manish Nigam, Panel Lawyer For Res. No.4 & 5 :

Ms. Arpana Singh, Advocate For Res. No.6 :

Shri F.S. Khare, Advocate

-2S.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 30/08/2018 Heard.

1. In this petition, number of grounds have been raised by the petitioner for quashing of FIR. However, this Court finds that during pendency of this petition, charge sheet has now been filed and there is no interim order passed in the matter.

2. Therefore, in these circumstances, when the petitioner has remedy to argue against framing of charge before the Court below in appropriate stage of proceedings, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. The petition is therefore dismissed, however, with liberty to raise all the grounds available under the law at the stage of framing of charge to convince the Court below that no case is made out worth framing of charges. Sd/-----/-/--- -- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen