RAJESH KUMAR CHOPDA Vs. 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 private respondents No.6 to 10 for cognizance of cognizable offence and holding thorough and speedy investigation in the matter.

(2.) Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the cognizanable offence has been committed by the respondents No.6 to 10 against which, a report has been lodged and thereafter, again the matter has been reported to the higher authorities including Director General of Police, Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range and Superintendent of Police, but yet, no action has been taken against them in the light of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others 1 (2014) 2 SCC 1 and respondents be directed to proceed against respondents No.6 to 10.

(3.) On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the State/respondents No.1 to 5, would submit that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the action of the police authorities, he has alternative remedy of submitting an 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 Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2 (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 Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors 3 2009 (I) MPJR-CG 73.