SARASWATI BAI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned State Counsel prays for time to file additional reply. Incidentally, Vinod Minj, the Police Officer who has sworn the affidavit in support of reply is present in the Court. Since he was assisting the Court and filed affidavit, a specific query was made that whether he has signed the affidavit after understanding the issue. He answer it in affirmative.

(2.) The challenge in this petition is to the notice dtd. 1/2/2022-24 whereby the summons have been issued by the Addl. Superintendent of Police Mahasamund to the petitioner to appear on 3/2/2022 at Police Office Mahasamund at 11.30 a.m., The notice is preceded by an earlier one dtd. 24/1/2022.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on a complaint made against the petitioners and others, the Police after investigation filed a report under sec. 155 of CrPC holding it a non-cognizable offence. Thereafter, the instant notice has been issued. He would submit that without there being any offence registered, the enquiry of like nature cannot be carried out. He placed reliance on an order passed by this Court in WP(Cr.) No. 678 of 2020 (Rajeshwar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh) decided on 7/6/2021. Therefore he would submit that it amounts to arm-twisting and consequently the respondents be restrained to call the petitioner pursuant to the summons of like nature.