Chattisgarh High Court
Mohammad Firoz vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 October, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 543 of 2022
Mohammad Firoz S/o Late Abdul Jabbar Aged About 38 Years R/o Masjid
Gali Masanganj Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of
Home/police, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2. Superintendent of Police Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
3. Station House Officer Police Station- Civil Lines District- Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
4. Haji Anwar Rahmani S/o Mohammad Yusuf Aged About 67 Years R/o
H. No. 113, Park Street Kolkata West Bengal
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
______________________________________________________________
For Appellant : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 to 3 : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Deputy Advocate General
_____________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Judge
Judment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
10.10.2022
Heard Ms. Diksha Gouraha, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for
respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
2. This writ appeal is presented by the respondent No.4 in the writ petition
against an interim order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge in WP(Cr) No. 628 of 2022.
3. The petitioner before the writ Court was an Arbitrator appointed to
adjudicate dispute between Madhya Bharat Paper Limited and M/s Taj
Traders & M/s. Sanzar Enterprises. As the dispute could not be resolved, it is
pleaded that an FIR bearing Crime No. 0683 of 2022 under Sections 420, 34
of the IPC came to be lodged implicating the petitioner.
4. The order of the learned Single Judge goes to show that contention was
advanced that the fact that the petitioner was father of one of the directors of
Madhya Bharat Paper Limited was not disclosed.
5. Section 2 (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench)
Act, 2006 provides that an appeal shall lie from a judgment or order passed
by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, to a Division Bench comprising of two Judges
of the same High Court. The proviso thereto lays down that no appeal shall
lie against an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. Ms. Gouraha submits that the appeal is maintainable as the interim
order is in the nature of a final order.
7. We do not think so.
8. The operative portion of the order of the learned Single, whereby
interim order was granted, reads as follows :
"Considering the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties; facts of the case and the documents
enclosed with the petition, particularly, considering the
fact that petitioner is not a party to the agreement dated
26.10.2021, it is directed that further proceedings of FIR
bearing Crime No. 683 of 2022 registered at Police
Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur may go on but no coercive
action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to
the FIR, for a period of 45 days from today with a
condition that he will cooperate with the investigation."
9. A bare perusal of the above would go to show that no finality is attached
and the order was passed purely as an interim measure for a period of 45
days.
10. In that view of the matter, this writ appeal is not maintainable and,
accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Sanjay Agrawal)
Chief Justice Judge
Chandra
