Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 15]

Chattisgarh High Court

Shailendra Bahadur Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh 44 Wpcr/13/2019 ... on 15 January, 2019

                                           1

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                WPCR No. 15 of 2019

    Shailendra Bahadur Singh S/o Late Shri Awadh Bihari Singh Aged About 46
     Years Registered A Class Contractor, R/o Main Road Mastan Para, Sukma,
     District Sukma, Chhattisgarh

                                                                          ---- Petitioner

                                        Versus

   1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Home (Police)
      Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   2. The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, District Raipur,
      Chhattisgarh

   3. The Superintendent Of Police State Economic Offence Wing (Eow), Near Ghadi
      Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   4. The Superintendent Of Police Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   5. Station House Officer P. S. Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                      ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Ghanshyam Patel, GA for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 15/01/2019

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in one of the notice inviting tender but on the basis of the forged FDR another contractor namely M/s Ramsharan Singh Bhadoriya was granted the contract though the FDR which was shown was forged in the month of May, 2018. He further submits that he has made report before the Superintendent of Police, 2 EOW and also the Chief Engineer, PWD in the month of June, 2018 and the report was also made to the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, however, nothing has transpired.

3. Perusal of the report shows that prima facie it was stated that some forgery has been projected and cognizable offence is reported. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the matter of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others {(2014) 2 SCC 1} the concerned police is expected to lodge the FIR and carry out the investigation, therefore, the concerned police authority is directed to register the FIR taking into the nature of the complaint and investigate the same.

4. With such observation, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu