Judgment · High Court · 2003

; Smt. i3asratri AiaiJ., aged 55 :y^ars 'B/o.Jltendra Adil, resldehti 'Gijf^ ^ Behind uTeevan Lal Hpspltal, Bha-tapara, Distt. RaiplUT .(G:;.^]. );.:i: PETITION UNDER &R'r:B3ItE^2S. OS" SONSTCTyTitON. QE iliffil fiHI Bii! BQ XI-HC-22 T^'sqraRR, •NlH're; rray snif^T ira^ ^,y. ioo. 3o5Z./'^3 ••-^ 2»0 IINCTI aifllifl sn^i'^1 h'u'* sf^s ^tfl^w?^ STK^^aiWTElf^T *i<<(!'i''i"i-) w^vS 4 iyS <Rii«$i< ^? 3lfSa*I SRlta 01/11/2003 Shri HX.Stama,, counsel 'or the petitioner. Shri Rraveen Das, PL for State. Heard. Petitioner has preferred |is writ petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India ta | hich the main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitionei) is an elected Sarpanch of village Gram Panchayat Kukura Chund4 Respondent nho.5 contcbted an election for the post of Direotor, Mandi Bhatapara, bu\ she could not sucoeed in the election, therefore, she star tell blaming the petitioner and the respondent no.4 started threatating the petitioner to implicate the petitioner in Criminal case witt) thc help of the respondcnt no.5. Respondents no. 4 and 5 conUtued to threat the petitioner. He made a written complaint before P.H.O. Bhatapara on 30/06/2002, but no action was taken agair^st the rcspondents no. 4 and 5.. Respondents no, 4 and 5 sent several threatening letters to the petitioner. ^t behest of respondj ^nt no.4, on 23/08/2003 at about

7.00 p.m., the respondent no,3 Spok the petitioner to Police Station and threatened to implicate him i(i Itl criminal oase. Respondents no. 3 and 4 forced the petitioner to eftecute eheques of Rs.70,000/- on XI-HC-22 •3ipfi?pT, -grgte^, r««iiyy 3^ @ t<|t<CTT%W» Bil^t^I r<-li4> an^f attli'b'Hii^ sn^i •reiiwHfea •til^td'Tl") t|W<-ff ^ lyzt <(a|t(l< ^73lPgtI3iI^I different dates and respondents no. 3| and 4 forced the petitioner to sign on Ikramama as per Annexure y/5 regarding the payment of the same and the said cheques were| ycven to the respondent no.4 who acknowledged the receipt of ch4 4ques in favour of respondent no.5. !t is submitted by counsel for tll (e petitioner that the petitioner inoved ooinplaints to Chief Minister, the Seoretaiy Home, S. D.0. (P), Bhatapara, Collector, Raipur. Super|ntendent of Rolice respondfait no.2 is bound to direct the register Uie criine in connection with alleged complaint regarding cognizable loffences. ! have heard leamed counsel forl [the petitioner and the leamed counsel for the State. Having hcard thc lcamcd counbc} for the pctitioncr, I ara of |the opinion that there is a provision in| the Criminal Procedure Code ]under Section 156(3) which lays |dcwn that any Ma^strate ^nipowered under Section 190 inay o+der such an invcstigation as labows mentioned. Therefore, in view this prowision, the petitioner |can file complaint before the Magistr^ ite concemed for sending his ;omplaint to P&lice for repstcrillg tlie| case aiid to investigatc into [affence as per provisions of Section 15| l5|6(3) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, A__. M-HC-22 ^^ •^l'illcl'1!, (Wly'l'i, I««II<HI< x WfvW th*il°h 200 3<I^?[^I 'R;IW 3IT^T 'a?tiR?:Bttct ^l^i'rpft'f HW^ ^ 'fe^ <F>i'^i< ^siPtnsn^t as an altemative remedy is availafcjle to the petitioner, I do not find any substance in this petition. Thej same is dismissed. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Ul \