1 2025:CGHC:29286 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 777 of 2022 1 - Vijay Kumar Verma S/o Late Ram Kripal Verma Aged About 59 Years R/o Q.No. Type 3/6, Ward No. 22, Central Hospital Colony, Amakherva, Manendragarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter Near Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Superintendent Of Police District Koriya Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Station House Officer, Police Station Manendragarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 01/07/ 2025 1. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 19.06.2025, the then Investigating Officer, Sachin Singh, Inspector, now posted in Police Station – Khamtarai, District-Raipur is Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.07 10:33:37 +0530 2 present in person before this Court. 2. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure not against any order but alleging that the respondents are not conducting a fair investigation in the Crime No. 307/2020 registered at Police Station Manendragarh, District – Koriya, and therefore, praying that the respondent authorities be directed to conduct a further investigation into the matter. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 01.09.2020, the petitioner, Vijay Kumar Verma, lodged a report against Anjali Sharma, Ullas Madhukar, Raghuveer Singh, S.K. Madan, Sanjay Sinha and Archana Malhotra at the police station Manendragarh, District-Koriya. On which Crime No. 307/2020 was registered under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and after investigation, the final report No. 350/2021 was presented in the Court against the accused Naina D/o Ashok Kumar under Section 420/34 of the IPC. On which Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, District-Koriya took cognisance on 26.11.2021, and the case was fixed for arguments on the charge. 4. On 06.04.2022, the trial court sent a memorandum to the Police Station in-charge, Manendragarh, District-Koriya, to the effect that there is no mention in the charge sheet as to what investigation was done and what action was taken 3 against the accused persons named in the First Information Report of petitioner/complainant Vijay Kumar Sharma. Therefore, it was directed to clarify the situation regarding the above 5. On the said memorandum, on 13.04.2022, a reply was sent by the Police Station in-charge-Manendragarh, District- Korea that petitioner Vijay Sharma had complained about the named accused that they had promised to get the claim by posing as an officer of the Securities and Exchange Board of India and had told to deposit the entire amount in an MOF Services Account No. 6313160837, that amount was deposited in the account of the account holder accused Naina Singh, hence she was made the accused. During the interrogation of accused Naina Singh, she admitted that she made up a story and talked to the petitioner from different mobile numbers, and she used to keep other mobile and ATM numbers, which she later destroyed and threw away. More than 10 debit cards and 9 mobile phones were seized from the accused Naina Singh. Whereas she used to keep the other accused only to talk on the phone, and on that basis, it was not possible to trace the other accused and other evidence was not collected and accused Naina Singh was found to have committed the crime. Therefore, a charge sheet was filed against her and no permission was taken from the Court under Section 173(8) 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on the basis of the information given by the petitioner, Vijay Sharma, in his complaint regarding the other accused persons, the police should be directed to conduct further investigation. 7. The then investigating officer and police station in-charge, Sachin Singh, has said that the reply sent on the Court's memorandum dated 13.04.2022 is complete in itself, hence there is no need for further investigation in that case. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 9. It does not appear from the material presented on record that, after receiving the reply of the Police Station In-charge to the memorandum sent by the Trial Court to the Police Station In-charge, Manendragarh, District-Korea, any further action or consideration has been undertaken by the Trial Court. 10. If any facts or evidence are presented in this regard during the trial of the case, then a request can be made by the petitioner at that stage, and the trial Court can consider that request as per law. In view of the reply of the police station in-charge at the present stage, it does not appear appropriate for this Court to issue any direction to the police authorities for further investigation in the matter. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and 5 the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also considering the reply dated 13.04.2022 filed by the SHO, Police Station – Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) there is no ground to direct the respondent authorities to further investigate into the matter and to file supplementary charge sheet in the case. 12. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu