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 7]

Chattisgarh High Court

Ranjeet Singh Ajgale vs State Of Chhattisgarh 96 ... on 8 January, 2019

                                          1

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                               WPCR No. 489 of 2018

    Ranjeet Singh Ajgale S/o Ramsanehi Ajgale, Aged About 43 Years R/o
      Malkharoda, Tahsil Malkharoda, P. S. Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa,
      Chhattisgarh

                                                                          ---- Petitioner

                                      Versus

   1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Superintendent Of Police Janjgir, District
      Jangjir- Champa, Chhattisgarh

   2. Thana In Charge Police Station Malkharoda, District Janjgir- Champa,
      Chhattisgarh

                                                                        ---- Respondents
For Petitioner             :      Shri C.S. Patel, Advocate
For Respondent/State       :      Shri Anant Bajpai, PL for the State


                       Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

                                  Order On Board

08/01/2019

   1. Heard.


2. The present petition has been filed for not taking cognizance on the report dated 13.05.2018 (Annexure P-2).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made a report against one Vrindalal Dhiwar, Sarpanch to the SDO (R), Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa for misappropriation of different funds on which the proceedings under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam was commenced against the Sarpanch and he was removed by order dated 10.05.2018. Apart from that a 2 report was made to the Superintendent of Police wherein cognizable offence was reported and it was stated that on the basis of the false documents and forged bill certain amount was defalcated and it is stated that despite the report made, no cognizance is being taken.

4. Perused the report dated 13.05.2018 (Annexure P-2). Perusal of the report shows that the cognizable offence has been reported, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1979 SC 1791) and Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others {(2014) 2 SCC 1} wherein it has been held that in such complaints/FIR disclosing commission of cognizable offence, the concerned police shall register the FIR, complete the investigation within a reasonable time, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned police to proceed in accordance with law and do the needful for completing the investigation at the earliest.

Sd/-

Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu