Disposed

Adhik Gupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC13 Dec 2023WPC/72/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a committee enquiry and transfer of a City Superintendent of Police alleged to have threatened him. The court disposed of the petition by directing the pending police enquiry to be concluded within three months, declaring the transfer prayer redundant as the officer had already been moved to Raipur.

What did the court decide?

Direct the concerned police authority to conclude the pending enquiry proceedings against the respondent officer within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.

Adhik Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPC No. 72 of 2014

¶4

1. Adhik Gupta S/o Lt Jay Kumar Gupta Aged About 24 Years R/o Babu Bhai Mobile, Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, PS Ambikapur, Civil And Revenue Distt Surguja, CG, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors S/o Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Distt Raipur, CG, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2. Direcrtor General Of Police Raipur, Distt Raipur, CG, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3. Inspector General Of Police Surguja Range, Ambikapur, Distt Surguja, CG, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶10

4. Superintendent Of Police Ambikapur, Distt Surguja, CG, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

5. Pankaj Shukla City Superintendent Of Police, Ambikapur, Distt Surguja, CG, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶14

----------------------------------------------- For Petitioner	------------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. Rahul Agrawal, Advocate
For State/Respondents 1 to 4	: Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. A.G.
Respondent No.5	: Mr. Praveen Das, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board

¶16

13.12.2023

¶17

1. The present petition has been filed against inaction of the respondent authorities and they are not taking any action against respondent No.5, on the complaint made by the petitioner on 10.11.2013, Annexure-P/1.

¶18

2. The petitioner is claiming following relief in the petition :-

¶19

10.1. That, the respondent authorities’ particularly the respondent No.2 to 4 be directed to constitute a committee to enquire the report made against the respondent No.5 in redressal of the representation and complaint made by the petitioner.

¶20

10.2. That, the respondent authorities be considered the representation made by the petitioner dated 28.12.2013 (Annexure P-8) related to transfer of respondent No.5.

¶21

¶22

10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that the respondent No.5 being a City Superintendent of Police posted at Ambikapur and by taking advantage of his post threatened the petitioner and trying to extort money from him. The petitioner has made various complaints against respondent No.5, on 10.11.2013 (Annexure-P/1), 10.12.2013 (Annexure-P/2), 24.12.2013 (Annexure-P/4) 26.12.2013 (Annexure-P/6), 27.12.2013 (Annexure-P/7) and 28.12.2013 (Annexure-P/8). Being his dominating position in the department, the subordinate police have not taken any action on the complaint made by the petitioner and therefore he prayed for transfer of the respondent No.5. from Ambikapur to any other place and also to constitute Committee for enquiry against the respondent No.5, to redress his grievances raised in the complaint as well as in the representation.

¶24

4. Learned counsel for the State/respondent would submits that one Anil Rai had lodged the FIR against the petitioner and his family members at Police Station Kothwali, Ambikapur which was registered as Crime No.553/2013, for the offences under Sections 147,427,448 and 451 of IPC. He would further submit that various complaints has been made by the petitioner against respondent No.5 and an enquiry was initiated by Dy. Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department, CID, PHQ, Naya Raipur under the instruction of DIG of Police (AJK), Naya Raipur. He would further submit that on 17.01.2014, the petitioner has sworn an affidavit and submitted it to the police headquarter, Raipur in which he has said that he is having dispute with Anil Rai, with respect to tenancy of shop, and on the behest of Anil Rai, he has made complaint against respondent No.5 and enquiry was initiated against him

¶25

¶26

but he has having no grudge against respondent No.5 and he does not want any action against him to stop the enquiry against respondent No.5. Copy of affidavit sworn by the petitioner dated 17.01.2014 is filed by the respondent/State as Annexure -A/2, he would further submit that the enquiry against respondent No.5 initiated by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department, CID, PHQ, Naya Raipur is kept in abeyance, but it is still pending.

¶27

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 would submit that during the pendency of this petition respondent No.5 has been transferred from City Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur to Additional Superintendent of Police, CM (Security), Raipur and he is presently posted at Raipur and therefore grievances of the petitioner is redressed and the petition does not have any cause of action survive for its adjudication.

¶28

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

7. The fact that the respondent No.5 is presently posted at Raipur and not there at Ambikapur, is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and therefore there is no need to consider the prayer for the transfer the respondent No.5, from Ambikapur to any other place and the prayer made in coloumn 10.2 of the petition has already been redressed. So far as the prayer made in coloumn 10.1 is concerned, the enquiry has already been initiated since 2014 itself but for one or another reason same is kept in abeyance and is still pending which appears from the document filed by the State/respondent alongwith the affidavit of Mr. Rajendra Mandavi, Sub Divisional Officer, Police Sitapur District – Surguja/ Officer in-charge of the case.

¶30

¶31

8. Since, the enquiry proceedings is still pending before the Dy. Superintendent of Police, CID Police Headquarter, Raipur. It would be appropriate to direct the concerned police authority to conclude the enquiry proceeding within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the outcome of the enquiry proceeding to the petitioner. If after receiving the communication with respect to final outcome of the enquiry proceeding, the petitioner feels any grievances against the outcome, he is at liberty to take an appropriate proceeding before appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶32

9. With this observation, the petition stands finally disposed off.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE

¶35

Ravi Mandavi

Adhik Gupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adhik Gupta 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

M/s Shridhar Bohidar and Company Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bihari Rajput Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

M/s Radhe Shyam Agrawal Partner Sanjay Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Krishnakant Ramavatar Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mithoo Lal Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh