Disposed

Smt. Savitri Gendley v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC27 Jan 2016WPCR/286/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to register an FIR for cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 420 and 406 IPC regarding misappropriated medical funds. The court found the offence non-cognizable and dismissed the writ.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; liberty granted to prefer a due constituted criminal complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

Smt. Savitri Gendley Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPCR No. 286 of 2015

¶4

Smt. Savitri Gendley D/o Late Sundar Lal Gendley, Aged About 56 Years R/o Rajendra Nagar, Tiwari Chal, Head Master, Government Primary School, Kesla, District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through: The Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

Station House OfÏcer, City Kotwali, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

OfÏcer In- Charge, Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

OfÏcer Incharge, Police Station, Civil Line, District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

For Petitioner Mt. Shrawan Agarwal, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. R.K. Gupta, Dy. A.G.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

27/1/2016

¶16

Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

(2) The petitioner would pray for a direction to respondent No.2 for registration of an offence under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC against the prospective accused namely Surendra Gendley and Indu Gendley (Sahu).

¶18

(3) The prayer has been made on the basis of report lodged with respondent No. 2 City Kotwali, Bilaspur inter alia alleging that the above

¶19

named persons were handed over Rs.15,000/- for incurring expenses in the treatment of the petitioner's mother Smt. Yashoda Gendle. However, the prospective accused committed breach of trust by misappropriating the amount. They did not use the amount for treatment of Yashoda Gendle but retained it for their own benefit.

¶20

(4) It appears, on the report lodged by the petitioner, the City Kotwali, Bilaspur has already made preliminary enquiry, wherein it has been found that the offence disclosed in the report Annexure P/1, is non-cognizable. If the allegations do not constitute commission of cognizable offence by the prospective accused, a writ of mandamus for registration of FIR cannot be issued.

¶21

(5) Accordingly, the wit petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer a duly constituted criminal complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Judge

¶24

(Prashant Kumar Mishra)

¶25

Shyna

Smt. Savitri Gendley v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savitri Gendley v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Kumar Katzhare Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Sandipan Mazumdar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Jai Ma Samlai Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jai Bajrang Machhuwara Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bali Nagwanshi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chaturbhuj Savariya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh