Geeta Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(CR) No. 657 of 2018 Geeta Patel, W/o. Ramkishore Patel, Aged About 26 Years, R/o. Village Asoda, Police Station & Tahsil Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. Superintendent Of Police, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

3. Station House Officer, Police Station Sakti, District-Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

4. Ramkishore Patel, S/o. Chandrashekhar Patel, Aged About 27 Years.

5. Kamleshwar Patel, S/o. Chandrashekhar Patel, Aged About 21 Years.

6. Chandrashekhar Patel, S/o. Parasnath Patel, Aged About 50 Years.

7. Rukhmani Patel, W/o. Chandrashekhar Patel, Aged About 45 Years. No. 4 to 7 are R/o. Village Asoda, Police Station & Tahsil Sakti, DistrictJanjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate For State :

Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Govt. Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 23.01.2019 Heard 1.

The present petition is by the complainant seeking direction to the police authorities to investigate the matter and register an FIR against the respondent No.5 for the offence under Section 376 & 498A/34 of I.P.C.

2.

It is contended that the complainant was married to one Ramkishore Patel and she was subjected to physical exploitation before the marriage. Subsequent to marriage, she was subjected to torture for demand of dowry, therefore, the report was made

initially in 2017 and was withdrawn. Subsequently, the report was made on 11.06.2018, 13.06.2018 & 14.06.2018.

3.

Learned State counsel was directed to take instructions as to what happened to the report made. It is contended that in the first conciliation, the petitioner appeared and thereafter she did not appear.

4.

Perused the report made to the Superintendent of Police, JanjgirChampa. After perusal of the report, it appears that the cognizable offence has been reported, therefore, without going into the merits of this case, as per the law laid down in case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2014) 2 SCC 1, the police authorities are required to register the FIR and complete the investigation within a reasonable time.

5.

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