Chattisgarh High Court
D.S Rajput vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Review Petition No. 16 of 2022
1. D.S. Rajput, Aged About 55 Years, S/o Late Pratap Singh, R/o 2 AV B-16
Officers Colony Police Station Bankimongra Tehsil Katghora, District Korba
(C.G.)
2. Jitendra Mishra, Aged About 53 Years, S/o Late B.L. Mishra, R/o H-No. D-4
Officers Colony Dilwadih Tehsil Katghora District Korba (C.G.)
3. K. RamKrishna, Aged About 55 Years, S/o K. Shrinivas Rao, R/o D-5 Officers
colony SECL Korba District Korba C.G.) (Applicants)
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Home Department Naya Raipur
Mantralaya Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. The Superintendent of Police Korba (C.G.)
3. Officer In-charge of Police Station Bankimongra District Korba (C.G.)
4. The Superintendent of Police Korba, District Korba (C.G.)
5. Gajendra Singh Tomar, S/o Shri V.S. Tomar, aged about 41 years, R/o
Bhatgaon, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh - Partner of Firm M/s Gajendra Singh
Tomar 334/3 Sharda Vihar Korba (C.G.)
6. Santosh Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Surjitlal Sharma, Aged About 41 years, R/o
Sharda Vihar Near Mudadai Mandir Korba Tehsil and District Korba (C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board
11.02.2022
1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that against the
order dated 25.10.2021, passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Cr.) No.370
of 2017, the petitioners has preferred writ appeal before Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court, wherein, Hon'ble Division Bench vide its judgment
dated 07.01.2022 passed in Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2022 (Annexure A-3) has
observed as under :-
"3. Mr. Tiwari submits that the learned Single Judge erroneously
observed that charge-sheet has been submitted by the police after
completion of the investigation and accordingly, had directed that the
trial be proceeded with. He further submitted that, in fact, no charge-
sheet has been submitted till date and therefore, the edifice of the
order of the learned Single Judge is based on a non-existence fact.
4. Mr. Ahluwalia submits that in the return filed, it was not pleaded that
the charge-sheet has been filed. However, the learned Single Judge
had observed that in the return filed it is stated that charge-sheet had
been submitted.
5. In view of the above position, we are not inclined to go into the
merits of this case and we disposed of this appeal, giving liberty to the
petitioner to file an appropriate application for review of the order dated
25.10.2021. In the event of filing of any application for review, the
same shall be considered in accordance with law. We make it clear
that we have not expressed any opinion on merits."
2. In view of the aforesaid liberty granted by the Division Bench of the Court,
the petitioners have preferred the present review petition.
3. Shri Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
would submit that foundation of the order passed by the Single Bench of
this Court in paragraph 9 is incorrect. Paragraph 9 of the order dated
25.10.2021 passed in WPCR No. 370 of 2017 is extracted below :-
"9. Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class after perusal of the documents in
support of the complaint, has passed the impugned order on 8-12-
2016 directing the Station House Officer, Police Station Bankimongra,
District Korba to register FIR for the offence punishable under Section
420 of IPC against the petitioners and respondent No. 5 which is legal
and justified and the Police authorities investigated the matter and
thereafter submitted the final charge sheet before the concerning court
below. As such, learned Magistrate has not committed any material
illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned order warranting any
interference by this court, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioners
deserves to be dismissed......................................"
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that since incorrect
facts have been taken into consideration while deciding the writ petition
(Criminal) it is necessary for the applicant to prefer this review application
and would submit that the order be kindly reviewed.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. This fact cannot be lost sight by this Court that charge-sheet has not been
filed because of the interim order passed by this Court. This Court while
admitting the petition on 10-11-2017 has directed that in the meanwhile
investigation may go on but no coercive step shall be taken against the
petitioners till the next date of hearing and that interim order was continued
till the writ petition is finally decided by this Court vide order dated
25.10.2021. In view of the such interim protection granted in favour of the
petitioner, investigation was continued but no charge-sheet was filed,
therefore, this part of the order deserves to be reviewed.
7. Accordingly, in paragraph 9, in place of "police authorities investigated the
matter and thereafter submitted the final charge sheet before the
concerning court below" it be read that " The Police Authorities are directed
to investigate the matter and submit the charge-sheet before the
concerning Court below".
8. In paragraph 19 also in place of " it is directed that since the final report has
been submitted by the Police, the trial Court may proceed with the trial, in
accordance with law" it be read that "after submission of charge-sheet by
the Police Authorities, the trial Court may proceed further in accordance
with law."
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.10.2021 passed by this Court in
WPCR No. 370 of 2017 is reviewed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
Rest part of the order shall remain intact.
10. Review petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Amita
