CHANDRAKANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, as they have not taken any action on the complaint made by petitioner for registration of First Information Report (FIR) against respondent No. 7 despite the fact that the complaint disclosed commission of cognizable offence.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that petitioner and respondent No. 7 are relatives. Their relative namely Lal Govind Singh was working in the SECL, but due to incapability of performing his job, he left the job. It is alleged that respondent No. 7 is son of Jay Govind Singh, who was brother of late Lal Govind Singh, but respondent No. 7, on the basis of false and fabricated documents, has got compassionate appointment impersonating himself as son of Lal Govind Singh and presently he (respondent No. 7) is working as Foreman at Rehar Mines, Vishrampur, District Surajpur (C.G.), thus, the respondent No. 7 has committed the offence of forgery and cheating, hence, complaint in this regard (Annexure P-2) was made to respondent No. 6 but he did not lodge FIR against respondent No. 7, hence, written complaint (Annexure P-4) was also made to Superintendent of Police, Surajpur, respondent No. 4 herein, but inspite of aforesaid complaints, FIR has not been registered against respondent No. 7, whereas, complaint made against respondent No. 7 disclosed commission of cognizable offence, hence, the petitioner has filed instant writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

(3.) Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 7 has got compassionate appointment impersonating himself as son of late Lal Govind Singh, who was working in the SECL and left his job, whereas, respondent No. 7 is not a son of Lal Govind Singh, but he is son of Jai Govind Singh, who was brother of Lal Govind Singh. It is further submitted that to secure aforesaid job, respondent No. 7 has manipulated/fabricated false educational documents and, thus, he has committed offence of forgery and cheating and caused huge loss to SECL, which discloses cognizable offence against him, despite making complaint in this regard to respondents No. 4 and 6/respondents police authorities, FIR has not been registered against respondent No. 7. While referring the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP and Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 and the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Cr.) No. 9 of 2016 (Bhushan Singh Rathiya v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), it is submitted that in aforesaid judgments, it has clearly mandated that if complaint discloses commission of cognizable offence, then police authority is bound to register the FIR and if the same is not done, then it would be a matter of contempt. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of non-compliance of order passed in W.P. (Cr.) No. 9/2016, contempt proceedings was initiated against the concerned police officer vide order dtd. 7/7/2017 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 140 of 2017, hence, it is prayed that direction may be issued to the respondents police authorities to take appropriate action and lodged FIR on the complaint made against the respondent No. 7.