Dismissed¶38

Raju Dinkar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jan 2025WPCR/18/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPCR No. 18 of 2025, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, decided 15/01/2025, dismissed — writ petition seeking direction to SHO, P.S. Koni to investigate complaints, file charge sheet against respondent nos. 4 to 8, and time-bound trial; remedy indicated under Section 156(3) and Section 200 Cr.P.C., now Section 175(3) and Section 223 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; prior rulings noted: Waseem Haider (Allahabad HC, Misc. Bench No. 24492 of 2020, 14.12.2020) and Akhilesh Agrawal (WPCR No. 333 of 2020, CGHC, 12.04.2023); petitioners granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedy before appropriate forum; police inaction on complaints; Bilaspur.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy before appropriate Forum. ¶38

Raju Dinkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy before appropriate Forum.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking directions to the SHO, P.S. Koni (Bilaspur) to investigate the matter, file the charge sheet against respondent nos. 4 to 8 and secure expeditious disposal of the trial should be entertained, or whether the petitioners should seek redress under Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 175(3) or Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) before the Court below.

¶31

Court's answer

The writ petition is dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum.

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Division Bench — per Ramesh Sinha, C.J., with Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.), WPCR No. 18 of 2025, decided 15.01.2025: Petitioners, residents of Village Sendri, P.S. Koni, Bilaspur, prayed that the record be called for and that the SHO, P.S. Koni be directed to investigate and enquire, file a charge sheet against respondent nos. 4 to 8, and that the trial magistrate dispose of the trial within six months of filing of the charge sheet. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite several complaints no action had been taken by the State respondents. Counsel for the State submitted that the grievance could be redressed before the Court below by an application under Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 175(3) or Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), noting that the controversy stood decided by Waseem Haider (Allahabad High Court, Misc. Bench No. 24492 of 2020, judgment dated 14.12.2020) and by this Court in WPCR No. 333 of 2020 (Akhilesh Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, decided 12.04.2023, dismissing the petition). The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum.

1 / 3

2025:CGHC:2400-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPCR No. 18 of 2025

¶6

1 - Raju Dinkar S/o Foolchand Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Sendri Of P.S. Koni Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Smt. Janki Bai D/o Angad Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Sendri Of P.S. Koni Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶8

3 - Smt. Heera Bai D/o Angad Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Sendri Of P.S. Koni Tahsil And District -Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Ministry Of Home Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District -Bilaspur (C.G,)

¶13

3 - Station House Officer Police Station Koni District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

4 - Ajit Singh S/o Rajkumar Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 6/80 Ward No. 46 Kapil Nagar Near Sahu Kirana Stores New Sarkanda Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶15

5 - Shreshth Pathak S/o Mithlesh Pathak Aged About 41 Years R/o New Sarkanda Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶16

Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN

¶17

2 / 3

¶18

6 - Abhinaw Pathak S/o Mithilesh Pathak R/o Naya Sarkanda Tahsil And District -Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶19

7 - Sanjay Shrivas S/o Gorelal Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Ram Mandir Tilak Nagar Bilaspur Tahsil And District -Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶20

8 - Bahadur Sijngh S/o Ramfal Singh Aged About 24 Years R/o Near Durga Mandir Tilak Nagar Bilaspur Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶23

For Petitioners	: Mr. N.K. Chhatterjee, Advocate
For Respondents/State	: Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate

¶24

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶25

Order on Board

¶26

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

¶27

15/01/2025

¶28

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the

¶29

following prayers:

¶30

“(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may please call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the Petitioner in the interest of justice.

¶31

(ii) That this Hon'ble Court may further pleased to direct SHO Koni, Distt. Bilaspur to investigate and enquire it the matter and to file the charge sheet against Respondent No. 4 to 8 and to direct the concerned magistrate to expedite the matter and after the completion of the trial, directing the trial magistrate to dispose of the trial in the period of six months from the date the filing of the charge sheet, in the interest of justice.

¶32

(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems

¶33

3 / 3

¶34

fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite several complaints have been made no action has been taken by the State respondents.

¶36

We have perused the prayers and pleadings made in the writ petition.

¶37

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the grievance of the petitioners can be very well redressed before the Court below by filing an application under Section 156 (3) or under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. (now, under Section 175(3) or under Section 223 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). He further submits that the controversy involved in the present matter has already been decided by the High Court of Allahabad in Misc. Bench No. 24492 of 2020 : Waseem Haider Vs. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Home Others vide judgment and order dated 14.12.2020 as well as by this Court in WPCR No.333 of 2020 (Akhilesh Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) decided on 12.04.2023, dismissing the said petition, hence, the present petition be also dismissed in terms of the said order.

¶38

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy before appropriate Forum.

¶39

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶40

ved

Raju Dinkar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Dinkar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramakant Maurya @ Romi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Himalaya Ravi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pankaj Kumar Bagde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Paltan Ram Chakradhari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ghanshyam Sonteke Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Alekh Sandre Mandloi Vs State of Chhattisgarh