Disposed

Chaturgun Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 May 2017WPHC/24/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed police to vigorously investigate a missing person case involving intra-community discrepancies. It held that while investigation permitting statements from certain individuals, they must be summoned with prior notice to prevent harassment, but dismissed compensation claims as it could hamper the inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Directing police to trace missing persons and summon petitioners only with prior notice; dismissed compensation claims to avoid hampering investigation.

Chaturgun Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (HC) No. 24 of 2015

¶3

Chaturgun Ram S/o Santoshi, Aged About 56 Years R/o Sonawal, Thana Sonawal, P. O. Sonawal, Tehsil Ramanujganj, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh)

¶4

---- Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶7

2. Inspector General Of Police, Sarguja Range, Sarguja, Distt. Sarguja (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

3. Superintendent Of Police, Police Distt. Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

4. Station House Office, Police Station Sonawal, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

5. Afjal Khan S/o Ajhar Khan R/o Sonawal, Thana Sonawal, P. O. Sonawal, Tehsil Ramanujganj, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

And

¶13

Writ Petition (Cr) No. 55 of 2014

¶14

1. Asgari Khatoon Wd/o Lt Azhar Husain Aged About 45 Years R/o Sanawal, Ps Sanawal, Civil & Revenue Distt Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

2. Mohd. Shoukat S/o Lt Azhar Husain, Aged About 21 Years Occupation Fabrication, R/o Sanawal, Ps Sanawal, Civil & Revenue Distt Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

3. Mohd. Jameer S/o Lt Shahabuddin Aged About 40 Years Occupation Painter, R/o Ahmed Colony, Manendragarh, Distt Korea, Chhattisgarh

¶17

4. Bashir S/o Lt. Shahabuddin, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Grossry Shop, R/o Sanawal, Ps Sanawal, Civil & Revenue Distt Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

5. Mohd. Mustakem S/o Abdul Jabbar Aged About 46 Years Occupation Labour, R/o Sanawal, Ps Sanawal, Civil & Revenu Distt Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

6. Mohd. Abrar S/o Abdul Jabbar Aged About 28 Years Occupation Labour, R/o Gadhwa, Distt Palamu (Bihar)

¶20

7. Hafiz Mohiuddin S/o Shababuddin Aged About 55 Years R/o Sanawal, Ps Sanawal, Civil & Revenue Distt Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶21

8. Jiyayul Haque @ Chhote S/o Mojibul Haque, Aged About 27 Years Occupation Cloth Merchant, R/o Sanawal, Ps Sanawal, Civil & Revenue Distt Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioners

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶26

2. Director General Of Police Raipur, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶27

3. Inspector General Of Police Ambikapur, Distt Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶28

4. Superintendent Of Police Balrampur, Distt Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶29

5. Station House Officer P.S.Sanawal, Distt Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶30

6. Mr. G.S.Darro Aged About 55 Years Superintendent Of Police, Balrampur, Distt Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶31

7. Rannu Singh Munshi, Ps Sanawal, Distt Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶32

8. Sameer Shukla Constable, Crime Branch, Ps Sanawal, Distt Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶33

9. Sudhir Constable, Crime Branch, Ps Sanawal, Distt Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶34

10. Ashok Kannoujia Head Constable, Ps Sanawal, Distt Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶35

11. Pawan Kannoujia Sepoy, Ps Sanawal, Distt Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶36

---- Respondents

¶37

For Petitioner : Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate {In WP(HC) No. 24 of 2015} For Petitioners : Ms. Hamida Siddique, Advocate {In WP(Cr) No. 55 of 2014} For State : Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondents : Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate {In WP(Cr) No. 55 of 2014} No. 6 to 11

¶38

Hon'ble Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

¶39

Judgment on Board

¶40

Per Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice

¶41

02.05.2017

¶42

1. Writ Petition (Cr) No.55 of 2014 was initially filed as Writ Petition (C) No.610 of 2014 before the learned Single Judge seeking a direction to the police officials not to harass the Petitioners in the name of interrogation. That was dismissed at some point of time for default, later restored and then made over to the Division Bench.

¶43

2. Writ Petition (HC) No.24 of 2015 was filed on 05.10.2015 long after institution of the earlier matter before the learned Single Judge. Writ

¶44

¶45

Petition (HC) No. 24 of 2015 seeks a writ in the nature of habeas corpus in re Rita, the daughter-in-law of the Petitioner therein.

¶46

3. Going by the pleadings in both these cases, Rita was married to the son of Chaturgun Ram, the Petitioner in Writ Petition (HC) No.24 of 2015. Satyam and Shivam are her children. It appears that she went missing and her non-availability is attributed to the Respondent No. 5 in Writ Petition (HC) No. 24 of 2015, namely Afjal Khan.

¶47

4. Afjal Khan's mother and siblings are the Petitioners in Writ Petition (Cr) No. 55 of 2014 in which they alleged that as a consequence of the lodgment of an FIR as to the missing of Rita, they are summoned or even otherwise brought to the police station and subjected to harassment.

¶48

5. On the totality of the facts, it appears that Afjal Khan and Rita belong to two different communities. The missing of Rita is an issue which is now being vigorously investigated by the jurisdictional police as reflected through the pleadings placed on record by the police officials in Writ Petition (HC) No. 24 of 2015. In that context, it would not be out of place for the police, mother and siblings of Afjal Khan to give statements or being subjected to questioning as part of the investigation. That however does not mean that those persons could be subjected to any form of harassment or action which would not fall within the legitimate form of investigation in terms of Code of Criminal Procedure and other authorising statutory provisions.

¶49

6. Having considered the gamut of facts in both the cases together, we are of the view that ends of justice would be satisfied if the jurisdictional police vigorously proceeds with the investigation as regards the missing of Rita and her children, Satyam and Shivam and also would require the

¶50

¶51

mother and the siblings of Afjal Khan only for the purpose of giving any statement or being questioned in accordance with law with prior notice being issued to them for summoning them.

¶52

7. These writ petitions are accordingly ordered directing that the aforesaid shall be carried out and conformed with, thereby the State police making all out efforts to trace out Rita, Satyam and Shivam. It is clarified that the Petitioners in Writ Petition (Cr) No. 55 of 2014 shall not be subjected to any action otherwise as part of due process of law, in terms of what is directed above.

¶53

8. On the totality of the facts, we are of the view that no substantial material is available in order to order payment of compensation in favour of the Petitioners in Writ Petition (Cr) No. 55 of 2014. We are also of the view that any such order issued by this Court will only hamper the process being pursued by the police to reach at Afjal Khan who appears to be a wrong doer in this case, going by the submissions made on behalf of the police.

¶54

Sd/Sd/- (Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) (P. Sam Koshy) Chief Justice Judge

¶55

Chandra

Chaturgun Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaturgun Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

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

Motilal Shrivastava Now Dead, Through Legal Respresentatives i Smt. Kusumlata Shrivastava Vs The Raipur Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Kartik Ram Vs S. K. v. Deshpande

Commissioner, Central Excise Customs and Service Tax, Raipur Vs Steel Authority Of India Limited

Manoj Kumar Baghel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Asgari Khatoon and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dayaram Bhagwani Vs Ashok Kumar Bhagwani