Jayesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.

Jayesh Kumar Jain vs State of Chhattisgarh and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Chhattisgarh Decided Sep 07, 2007

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/496751

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/496751
Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Judge: Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
Decided On: Sep 07, 2007
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 2. It is alleged by the petitioner that the company has come across some information through reliable sources that even after termination of the respondent No.

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jayesh Kumar Jain

Respondent

State of Chhattisgarh and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 2007(4)MPHT97(CG)

Excerpt

- - 2. it is alleged by the petitioner that the company has come across some information through reliable sources that even after termination of the respondent no......against the respondent no. 4 in the police station supela, dist. durg.4. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by not taking any action against the respondent no. 4, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are violating the provisions of section 154 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (for short, 'cr.pc') which provides registration of information of any cognizable cases and taking action against the accused person.5. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. it is evident that the petitioner has not exercised the remedy provided under section 154(3) of the cr.pc, by making a complaint to the superintendent of police concerned against the police station that the police station has declined to register a case in purported letter (annexure p-1).6. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly admits that the petitioner has not attempted to make a complaint to either a superior officer as provided under section 154(3) of the cr.pc, and he has further not availed other remedy available under the provisions of sections 190 and 200 of the cr.pc. the petitioner without assigning any reasons as to why he has chosen to prefer this petition seeking a direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to initiate enquiry against the respondent no. 4.7. this court cannot direct either judicial officer or the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 where the petitioner has not preferred any complaint or application under the provisions of law. the only submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the police station is under an obligation to register a case on the basis of complaint submitted by the person, does not require any further explanation. the police station is admittedly under an obligation to register a case and investigate the same.8. be that as it may, since the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy available under the provisions of sections 154, 190 and 200 of the cr.pc, it is.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

1. According to learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner is working as State Coordinator in Kas Foundation, which is incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. The main function of the Corporation is to provide financial support in rural areas of the country. The respondent No. 4 Shri Pradeep Singh was appointed as Assistant Manager at Bhilai Branch of the Company for coordinating two joint liability groups coordinator (JCs) for collecting installments of repayment of loan from the clients of the company. The respondent No. 4 was terminated from the services on 7-2-2007 due to some indiscipline committed by him.

2. It is alleged by the petitioner that the company has come across some information through reliable sources that even after termination of the respondent No. 4 from the services, he was collecting money from the clients/JCs of the company and is not depositing the same with the company, thereby cheating the company. Due to the above act of the respondent No. 4, the company has suffered heavy loss.

3. The petitioner made a written complaint (Annexure P-1) to the respondent No. 2 Superintendent of Police, Durg. According to the petitioner, the company has also lodged a complaint against the respondent No. 4 in the Police Station Supela, Dist. Durg.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by not taking any action against the respondent No. 4, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are violating the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.PC') which provides registration of information of any cognizable cases and taking action against the accused person.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that the petitioner has not exercised the remedy provided under Section 154(3) of the Cr.PC, by making a complaint to the Superintendent of Police concerned against the Police Station that the Police Station has declined to register a case in purported letter (Annexure P-1).

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly admits that the petitioner has not attempted to make a complaint to either a superior officer as provided under Section 154(3) of the Cr.PC, and he has further not availed other remedy available under the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.PC. The petitioner without assigning any reasons as to why he has chosen to prefer this petition seeking a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to initiate enquiry against the respondent No. 4.

7. This Court cannot direct either Judicial Officer or the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 where the petitioner has not preferred any complaint or application under the provisions of law. The only submission of learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Police Station is under an obligation to register a case on the basis of complaint submitted by the person, does not require any further explanation. The Police Station is admittedly under an obligation to register a case and investigate the same.

8. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy available under the provisions of Sections 154, 190 and 200 of the Cr.PC, it is not expedient to entertain this petition at this stage.

9. The petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. However, it would be open to the petitioner to take recourse to any other remedy available under the provisions of law.

Same Court & Year Chhattisgarh · 2007 Same Parties Jayesh Kumar Jain vs State of Chhattisgarh and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

Criminal