SMT. JYOTI ROHIDAS Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has filed this writ petition seeking appropriate writ or direction commanding the respondent authorities to register criminal case against respondent No.8 for cognizance of cognizable offence and holding thorough and speedy investigation in the matter.

(2.) Mr. D.K. Gwalre, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that cognizable offence has been committed by respondent No.8 against which a report was made on 6 -5 - 2015 against respondent No.8 to respondent No.5 and thereafter, again the matter was reported to higher authorities including the Superintendent of Police and the Collector. Again the incident was reported by the petitioner on 23 -9 -2015 to the Station House Officer respondent No.5 and also to the Superintendent of Police respondent No.4 but yet, no action has been taken. Therefore, in the light of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others (2014) 2 SCC 1 , the respondents be directed to proceed against respondent No.8.

(3.) On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the State/respondents No.1 to 6 on advance copy, would submit that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the action of the police authorities, she has alternative remedy of submitting application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the CrPC'), before the jurisdictional Magistrate as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2008) 2 SCC 409 or filing complaint before the jurisdictional criminal court under Section 200 of the CrPC. He would also rely upon the decision rendered by this Court in Mohd. Anish Memon v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.2009 (I) MPJR -CG 73.