1 / 3 2025:CGHC:4570 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1471 of 2024 1 - Ramayan Singh Rajput S/o Narmada Singh Rajput Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Manjgaon, Ward No. 10, Nagar Panchayat, Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer of Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent of Police of Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ashwini Singh Rathore, S/o Ramswaroop, Aged About 42 Years Posted At P.S. Katghora, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh (As Per Order Sheet Of Lower Court) Presently Posted As TI, P.S. Sukma, Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o Village Gandhidih, P.S. Lormi, District Mungeli, C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate For State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 24/01/2025 1. The instant petition under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been filed for seeking a direction towards Respondents No.1 & 2 to add name of Respondent ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.01.28 18:08:31 +0530 2 / 3 No.3 in FIR No.116/2024 lodged at Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli. 2. The brief facts of this case are that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the State Government for vacancy in the Department of District Police Force Year 2017-18 the brother of the petitioner applied for the aforesaid post. Thereafter, the brother of the petitioner participated in the aforesaid selection process. Thereafter, relatives of the petitioner’s brother approached them and introduced the name of Respondent No.3 and stated that he being employed in the Department can make necessary arrangements with regard to appointment of petitioner’s brother and for that purpose demanded an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-. On being given assured by Respondent No.3, petitioner’s family paid the said amount to Respondent No.3, however, the brother of the petitioner could not get appointment in the Department. Consequently, he demanded the money paid to Respondent No.3 but the same was refused. Thereafter, the petitioner made a police complaint against accused persons but Respondent No.3 being the office of the Department of Police, the concerned police station did not file FIR. Against which a case under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed before the JMFC, Lormi and the said Court called the report from the police wherein the police submitted the final report before the Court stating that FIR has been lodged against two persons namely Toshan Singh and Diwakar Singh but no FIR was lodged against Respondent No.3 and the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Hence this petition. 3 / 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Respondent No.3 is the main accused in the case, therefore, the FIR should be lodged against him and the learned JMFC has wrongly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed that the name of Respondent No.3 be added in the FIR. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the order of the Court below is well merited which do not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. From perusal of the record it is found that the FIR has already been registered by the Police and the investigation is going on and yet the final report has not been filed before the Court, therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner to add name of Respondent No.3 in FIR is not sustainable and it is not permissible under the law. 7. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu