Chattisgarh High Court
Tularam Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 June, 2021
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 106 of 2018
Tularam Patel, S/o Dhajaram Patel, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village-
Khaira, Tahsil & District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
Present Address- Devnandan Nagar Face - 1, Near Shri Jugal Kishor
Pandey, Advocate House, Tahsil & District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Director General of Police, Police
Head Quarter, Civil Line Raipur (C.G.)
2. Inspector General of Bilaspur Range, I.G. Office, Near Nehru
Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)
3. Superintendent of Police, Near Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)
4. Station House Officer, Police Station- Sarkanda, District-
Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate.
For State/respondents : Mrs. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order On Board
28.06.2021
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India mainly contending that the petitioner is
practicing advocate and criminal incident happened with the
petitioner, when Ambika Tiwari, Sitakant Tiwari, Girish Sharma,
Gyanchand Pathak, Budhwswar Naya & others have assaulted
him. They have committed the offence of attempt to kill the
petitioner. The petitioner has suffered injuries and on the basis of
point of knife, poison was inserted into his mouth. Initially, the
police has investigated and registered the offence as Crime No.
0/2015 under Section 364, 307, 328, 34 of I.P.C. against the
culprits. The case was transferred to Police Station- Sarkanda,
District- Bilaspur (C.G.). Police Station- Sarkanda has not
initiated any action against the culprits, therefore, the petitioner
has filed WPCR No. 138 of 2015 before this Court and this Court
vide its order dated 02.12.2015, disposed of the matter directing
the concerned police authorities to investigate the matter within
a reasonable time, but still they have not completed the
investigation, therefore, he has filed Contempt Case No. 241 of
2016 before this Court and during pendency of that contempt
petition, the respondent authorities have informed this Court that
they have completed the investigation and final report has been
submitted before the concerned Magistrate.
2. Respondent No. 4 has not investigated the matter properly and
submitted closure report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bilasspur, who after perusing the record, was pleased to reject
the closure report vide its order dated 17.04.2017. Thereafter, no
action has been taken by the police authorities. The complainant
vide its complaint dated 01.05.2017 has requested
Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur to register offence against the
culprits for committing offence under Sections 364, 307, 328, 34
of I.P.C. Despite this, no action has been taken by the police
authorities till date.
3. Since the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has already rejected
the closure report given by the police, therefore, the respondents
are duty bound to complete the investigation and submit final
report before the concerned Magistrate. As per the record, it
reflects that the alleged incident is of 12.04.2015 and even after
lapse of six months, there is no further progress in the
investigation.
4. The order of Chief Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur dated
17.04.2017, by which closure report No. 04/2016 in connection
with Crime No. 140/2015 registered at Police Station- Sarkanda,
Bilaspur for committing offence under Sections 364, 307, 328/34
of I.P.C. has been rejected. The State has preferred Criminal
Revision No. 09/2018 before Fourth Additional Sessions Judge,
Bilaspur, which was dismissed vide its order dated 18.05.2018.
5. The State has filed return, wherein they have recorded finding
that after appreciating the material and evidence brought on
record, it is crystal clear the complainant Tularam Patel has
given a forged report, therefore, the case is liable to be rejected
and after receiving the information, they have submitted the
closure report 04/2016 for approval before the learned court.
6. Since the final report has already been submitted by the police
authorities under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., still if the petitioner
has grievance, therefore, he may file complaint before the
concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & others1, has examined the issue holding that
the petitioner has remedy of filing of complaint before the
concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 200 of
the Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court has again considered and
decided the issue in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant
Yashwant Dhage2 and M. Subramaniam & another Vs. S.
Janaki & another3.
8. Considering the facts and materials on record and in light of the
law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the above
referred judgments, the present writ petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to file complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.
before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class having
jurisdiction over the place of offence and in-turn Magistrate will
follow the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the
Cr.P.C.
9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
1 (2008) 2 SCC 409
2 (2016) 6 SCC 277
3 (2020) 16 SCC 728
merits of the case whether the complaint discloses any criminal
offence or not.
10. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with
the aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioner.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Arun
