Chattisgarh High Court
Vishnu Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh 39 ... on 26 February, 2018
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 120 of 2018
• Vishnu Singh S/o Late Dhanushdhari Singh, Aged About 62 Years R/o
Village Baikunthpur, Police Station Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Of Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. The Collector District Koriya Chhattisgarh
3. The Tahsildar Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh
4. In - Charge Of Police Station Baikunthpur District Koriya Chhattisgarh
5. The Superintended Of Police, District Koriya Chhattisgarh
6. Sanjay Agrwal S/o Mahangi Lal Agrwal Aged About 45 Years Proprietor Of
Maa Vaishnav Associate Pvt. Ltd. R/o Village Schoolpara, Baikunthpur
Tahsil And P.S. Baikunthpur District Koriya Chhattisgarh
7. Rajesh Singh S/o Sambhu Singh Aged About 39 Years R/o Sardhi, Tahsil
And P.S. Baikuthpur District Koriya Chhattisgarh
8. Abdul Rahim S/o Abdul Aaziz Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Mani Tahsil
And P.S. Pratappur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh
9. Ameen S/o Abdul Aziz Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Salka, Tahsil And
P.S. Baikunthpur District Koriya Chhattisgarh
10. Chandraprakash Rajwade S/o Laxman Rajwade Aged About 50 Years R/o
Village Manjgawa, Tahsil And P.S. Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri A.K. Yadav, Advocate
For Respondents-State : Shri Adhiraj Surana, Dy. GA for the State
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Order On Board
26/02/2018
2
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner had purchased a land by a sale-deed dated 02.02.1950 and the petitioner was cultivating the said land but on 28.04.2017 respondents No. 6 to 10 have demolished the house and tried to take over the possession. He would further submit that the FIR has been registered under Sections 186, 294, 506, 323, 395, 427, 447, 448, 467, 468, 120 B I.P.C. and offences under Sections 3 (2), 3 (iv) & 3 (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, however, no action has been taken pursuant to the FIR.
2. Perused the documents filed alongwith the petition and the FIR dated 01.05.2017.
3. In the matter of Ram Lal Narang v/s. State (Delhi Administration) {(1979) 2 SCC 322} the Supreme Court held that whenever an office incharge of the Police Station received information relating to commission of a cognizable offence, he was required to register the FIR and complete the investigation without unnecessary delay and, as soon as it was completed, to forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report, a report in the prescribed form, setting forth the names of the parties, the nature of the information and the names of the persons who appeared to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case.
4. Considering the above law laid down by the Supreme Court, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned Police Station to complete the investigation in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Lal Narang (supra) at the earliest and file Final Report/Khatma or charge sheet, as the case may be, before the competent Criminal Court.
Sd/-
Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu