RAMSEVAK SONI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in person seeks a direction that despite his report for registration of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 120B of the IPC against respondents No.7 to 16, respondents No.5 and 6 have not registered any offence against the said persons, whereas they ought to have registered offence against the said private respondents, as the complaint filed by him discloses the commission of aforesaid offences.

(2.) Reply has been filed by the State/respondents No.1 to 6 stating inter alia that the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing application and complaint under Sections 156(3) & 200 of the CrPC and the complaint does not disclose any cognizable offence as complained, therefore, the complaint is baseless and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) The petitioner in person would submit that the complaint filed by him clearly and prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence, therefore, as per the decision laid down by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., 2014 2 SCC 1, it was imperative for respondents No.1 & 2 to register FIR, but, as they have declined, appropriate writ or direction be issued for registration of FIR.