Disposed

Tilak Raj Saluja v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Sept 2017WPCR/333/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an election candidate for the Press Club President, sought an FIR against a respondent employee of the respondent railway for alleged election canvassing and defamation. The High Court described the allegations as requiring inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to form an inquiry team to determine if a cognizable offence is made out based on the petitioner's written complaint.

Tilak Raj Saluja Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPCR No. 333 of 2017

¶5

Tilak Raj Saluja S/o Late Melaram, Aged About 63 Years President Press Club, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantrayala, Naya Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

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

¶11

The General Manager, South Eastern Central Railway, Zonal Office, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

Santosh Kumar Singh, Senior Public Relation Officer ( Sr. P. R. O. ), South Eastern Central Railway, Zonal Office, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For the Petitioner :	Shri Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/ State :	Shri Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate.
For respondent No.4. :	Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Judgment on Board

¶16

08.09.2017

¶17

Heard.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was a candidate in election for the post of President, Press Club, Bilaspur. Respondent No.5 having no business with the Press Club or with the election, canvassed for the opposite candidate by sending whatsapp messages, to the voters, because of which

¶19

¶20

petitioner was defamed and that respondent No.5 being an employee of railway has committed misconduct. The complaint was made by respondent No.4 to take action against the respondent No.5, but no action was taken.

¶21

The petition has been brought with a prayer to issue direction that FIR be lodged against the respondent No.5 by respondent No.3.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the writ petition and submits that if the case is disposed off with a direction then the State has nothing to oppose.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused all the documents placed on record.

¶24

Perused the complaint copy attached with the records, the allegations made by the petitioner needs some inquiry, hence, the petitioner is directed to make a written complaint before the respondents No. 2 and 3 and respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to make an inquiry of this effect, whether, any cognizable offence is made out and to do the needful in accordance with the law.

¶25

This petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶26

Sd /- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

¶27

Jamal

Tilak Raj Saluja v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tilak Raj Saluja v. State Of Chhattisgarh

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

Ajay Kumar Agrawal Vs Mohammed Gulfam

Jitendra Kumar Verma Vs Dadu Prasad Verma

Smt. Babita Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rabba Koma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bhagmania Bai Vs Windrawan

Anil Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh