Allowed

Manoj Choudhary v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Dec 2015WPCR/99/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two agents aggrieved by multiple police summons were represented. The court quashed orders demanding appearance and directed the Superintendent of Police to allocate one specific officer/station for the investigation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 2 (Superintendent of Police, Raipur) to entrust the investigation to a particular police station or officer within two months.

Manoj Choudhary Vs State Of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPCR No. 97 of 2014

¶4

Suman Das Burman S/o Late Shri J. Das Burman Aged About 41 Years Service In Apical Exim Private Ltd, R/o 224-A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata 700017 (WB)

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Ps Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg

¶8

Superintendent Of Police Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg

¶9

Town Superintendent Of Police Urla, Distt Raipur, Cg

¶10

Officer In Charge Special Crime Investigation Cell, District Police, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg

¶11

G.M.S.V.K. Rao Deputy Manager, Godavari Power And Ispat Ltd, Siltara, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg

¶12

---- Respondent

¶13

And

¶14

WPCR No. 99 Of 2014

¶15

Manoj Choudhary S/o Shri Tilchand Choudhary Aged About 45 Years By Occupation Liaison Work/business, Through Steelium Exports, 4540-36/3, Akkayyapalem Main Road, Visakhapatam- 530016 (A.P.)

¶16

---- Petitioner

¶17

¶18

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya Bhawan, Naya Raipur, PS Naya Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg

¶19

Superintendent Of Police Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg

¶20

Town Superintendent Of Police Urala, Distt Raipur, Cg

¶21

Officer In Charge Special Crime Investigation Cell, District Police Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg

¶22

G.M.S.V.K. Rao Deputy Manager, Godavari Power And Ispat Ltd, Siltara, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg

¶23

---- Respondent

¶24

For Petitioners Shri Ashok Swarnakar, Advocate For Respondent/State Shri Adiraj Surana, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.5 Shri Ankit Singhal, Advocate

¶25

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶26

Order On Board

¶27

07/12/2015

¶28

These writ petitions have been preferred by two agents/brokers/contact persons through whom the respondent No.5 has received steel scrap from a company based at London (United Kingdom). They are aggrieved by the notice issued by the Special Crime and Investigation Cell, Raipur, directing them to appear before the said authority for enquiry/investigation of a complaint lodged by the respondent No.5.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have already appeared before the respondent No.4, however, another notice has been issued to them by the respondent No.3 on 17-2-2014, therefore, it is writ large that different police authorities of Raipur are harassing the petitioners on the pretext of investigating a complaint lodged by the respondent No.5. It is also argued that no offence has yet been registered, yet the petitioners are being summoned for investigation.

¶30

Learned counsel for the State would submit that since the petitioners have already appeared before the respondent No.4 and as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners they are willing to cooperate in the investigation, this Court may dispose of both the writ petitions by directing the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, to entrust the matter to a particular police officer/police station for further investigation. Learned counsel for the State would further submit that writ petition preferred against the show cause notice in the form of directing the petitioners to appear during enquiry/investigation of a complaint, is not maintainable.

¶31

Be that as it may, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State, both the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to entrust the investigation to any particular police station/police officer so that the petitioners are not required to attend each and every police station on the dictates of different police officers.

¶32

Let the needful be done by the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, within a period of two months from today. Sd/-

¶33

Judge

¶34

Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶35

Gowri

Manoj Choudhary v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Choudhary v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Bahadur Dubey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Geeta Roy Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Md. Javed Aalam Vs Regional Transport Authority

Suman Das Burman Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Smt. Mandavi Mishra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ayub Ali Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.