Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 485 (MP)

Ramnarayan Yadav v. Ratnakar Singh Chauhan

2011-04-20

K.K.LAHOTI, MOOL CHAND GARG

body2011
JUDGMENT : This application is filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 29.1.2010 in W.P.No.11680/09. By the aforesaid order, this Court directed thus:- "....However, since in respect of the alleged theft an FIR has been registered, we are of the view that no purpose would be served by keeping the matter further pending and it would be appropriate to dispose of this petition at this stage with the direction to the respondents to complete the investigation, if not already completed, and submit report before the Court concerned under Section 173 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months, if not already submitted. It is further directed that the respondents No.7 and 9 shall get the allegation of theft alleged to have been committed with the connivance of the officials or employees of the Municipal Corporation, enquired and initiate departmental proceeding against the erring officials who are found responsible for the alleged theft and misappropriation." A reply was filed by the respondents in which it was stated that in 5 cases, challans were filed, but the aforesaid contention was opposed by the petitioner, so on 14.3.2011, we directed thus:- "14.3.2011 The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 submitted that he may be allowed a week's time to file an affidavit of respondent no.3 stating the fact that except 5 matters, shown in the chart filed along with the reply, no other matter is respect of theft of the property of the Municipal Corporation, Sagar which was subject matter of W.P.11680/2009 (PIL) is pending for investigation. Prayer is allowed. As the counsel for respondents 1 and 2 are not present, we adjourn hearing of this matter for 20th April, 2011". Thereafter, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.3 in which respondent No.3 stated thus:- "2. It is specific to mention here that the chart showing the details of registering the case and filing of Challan. A copy has already been filed alongwith the copy of reply. The case was listed on 14.03.2011 and direction was issued to file an affidavit regarding the only pendency of 5 cases and no other cases. In compliance the answering respondent humbly submitted that the Municipal Corporation, Sagar has only submitted the complaint/FIR in these 5 cases and no other FIR has been lodged. The Police has already completed the investigation in all those 5 cases. In compliance the answering respondent humbly submitted that the Municipal Corporation, Sagar has only submitted the complaint/FIR in these 5 cases and no other FIR has been lodged. The Police has already completed the investigation in all those 5 cases. The details have already been filed. The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Sagar has also written to the Superintendent of Police, District Sagar on 13.03.2011 that only 5 FIRs during the year 2005 before Police Station Surkhi, One FIR in the year 2006 before Police Station Gopalganj and 2 FIRs in the year 2008 before the Police Station Gopalganj total 5 FIRs were lodged. The Commissioner, Nagar Nigam specifically mentioned in the letter except this no FIR were lodged. Copy of the letter written by the Municipal Corporation Sagar is enclosed as ANNEXURE R/1." As only 5 FIRs have been lodged with the police in which investigations were made and challans were filed and as per affidavit, no FIR is pending to be investigated against the culprits, we find that the order passed by this Court dated 29.1.2010 has been complied with. No further action is required in the matter. The proceedings are closed. Rule-nisi is discharged. No order as to costs.