Chattisgarh High Court
Laxmi Narayan Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
W.P.(227) No. 428 of 2021
Laxmi Narayan Agrawal, S/o. Late Shri Jagannath Agrawal, aged about 53 years,
(Presently aged about 64 years), R/o. Village Barekel Khurd, Pithora, Police Station
and Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Department of Home Affairs
(Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Superintendent of Police, Uttar Mahasamund, District Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Station House Officer, Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
4. Basant Kumar Pandey, S/o. Late Shri Durga Prasad Pandey, aged about 43
years, R/o. Pithora, Tehsil and Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
5. Satish Sharma, S/o. Late Shri Ram Kishan Sharma, aged about 37 years,
6. Durgesh Sharma, S/o. Late Shri Ram Kishan Sharma, aged about 35 years,
7. Kusum Sharma, W/o. Late Shri Ram Kishan Sharma, aged about 57 years,
No.5 to 7 all are R/o Village Bundeli, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
8. Puneet, S/o. Shri Bahadur, aged about 33 years, R/o. Village Sapos, Pithora,
Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
9. Indra Kumar Sharma, S/o. Shri Bhure Lal, aged about 45 years, R/o. Pithora,
Tehsil and Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
10. Amrit Lal, S/o. Shri Baliram Satnami, aged about 46 years, R/o. Barekel
Khurd, Pithora, Tahsil and P.S. Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Counsel for the petitioner.
08/09/2021
Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy.A.G. for the State-respondents No.1 to
3.
Heard on petition as also on application for grant of interim
relief.
This petition has been brought being aggrieved by the order
dated 11.08.2021, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Pithora directing the respondents No.3 to make an enquiry into the
complaint filed and present report on the date fixed.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
earlier a complaint was made to the police station on which a notice
under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. was issued. On the basis of the same
facts, an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. has been filed,
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithora on which, the
impugned order has been passed. The respondent No.4 is the
complainant, who has suppressed the fact regarding notice issued to
him U/s. 155 of Cr.P.C. and has presented the application. Relying on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Priyanka Shrivastava
& Another Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287, it
is submitted that respondent No.4 has clearly violated the direction
issued in this judgment, therefore, the impugned order is
unsustainable. It is prayed that petition be admitted and interim relief
be granted to the petitioner.
Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
No.1 to 3 opposes the petition and the submission made in this
respect. It is submitted that the impugned order is appropriate and
within the authority of the Court below, which can not be interfered.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do
not feel inclined to grant interim relief to the petitioner at this stage.
Issue notice to the contesting respondents No. 4. Process fee
as per rules.
Learned State counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents
No.1 to 3.
List this case after four weeks.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
balram
