Dismissed¶32

Smt. Sangeeta Ketan Shah v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Apr 2026WPCR/207/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR non-registration; writ of mandamus; Superintendent of Police Durg; alternative remedy; Section 156(3) CrPC; Section 200 CrPC; Section 175(3) BNSS 2023; Section 223 BNSS 2023; SIT; transfer of investigation; Ramesh Kumari (2006) 2 SCC 677; Waseem Haider; Akhilesh Agrawal; WPCR No. 207 of 2026; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; Vishal Sone DSP; complaint dated 06.02.2026; agreement to sell 18.02.2023; Village Kohka land; Mahindra Scorpio-N CG-05-AP-5000; Simplex Casting.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before the appropriate Forum. ¶32

Smt. Sangeeta Ketan Shah Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

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

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing Respondent No.3 (Superintendent of Police, District Durg) to register an FIR on the petitioner's complaint dated 06.02.2026 disclosing cognizable offences against Respondent No.4 and other persons, and whether investigation should be conducted by the SP, an independent SIT, or transferred to an independent agency. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The writ petition seeking mandamus for registration of FIR and independent investigation is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum.

¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Division Bench; per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice, with Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge concurring) dismissed WPCR No. 207 of 2026 filed by Smt. Sangeeta Ketan Shah, Managing Director of Simplex Casting Ltd, seeking (i) a writ of mandamus directing the Superintendent of Police, Durg (Respondent No.3) to register an FIR on her complaint dated 06.02.2026 disclosing cognizable offences against Respondent No.4, Vishal Sone, Deputy Superintendent of Police, and others, and (ii) investigation by the SP, an independent SIT, or transfer to an independent agency. The petitioner alleged that Respondent No.4 misused his official position, induced her to pay Rs.10,00,000/- and execute an agreement to sell dated 18.02.2023 regarding land at Village Kohka, and retained a company-owned Mahindra Scorpio-N. The State contended the grievance could be redressed before the Court below under Section 156(3) or 200 Cr.P.C., now Section 175(3) or Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and that the controversy stood covered by Waseem Haider (Allahabad High Court, Misc. Bench No. 24492 of 2020, decided 14.12.2020) and Akhilesh Agrawal (WPCR No. 333 of 2020, decided 12.04.2023). The petitioner relied on Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2006) 2 SCC 677. The Court dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum.

2026:CGHC:17351-DB

MANPREET KAUR

Digitally signed byMANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.04.17 13:46:36 +0530

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 207 of 2026

¶7

Smt. Sangeeta Ketan Shah W/o Ketan M. Shah Aged About 48 Years Managing Director Of Simplex Casting, Ltd, R/o Suray Vihar Colony A5, Junwani, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Police Affairs, Police Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, (Phq) Sector 19, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - The Superintendent Of Police Durg, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Vishal Sone Deputy Superintendent Of Police Head Quarter, Dantewada, Distt. Dantewada South Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pratyaksh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board

¶18

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶19

¶20

16.04.2026

¶21

1. Heard Mr. Pratyaksh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State.

¶22

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶23

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police, District Durg) to register an FIR on the basis of the Petitioner's complaint, dated 06.02.2026 disclosing cognizable offences against Respondent No. 4 and other persons those who are involved.

¶24

10.2 That, this Hon'ble court be pleased to Direct investigation by Superintendent of police or constitution of an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) or transfer of investigation to an independent agency or other authority not connected with the district police establishment, to ensure fair, impartial and credible investigation.

¶25

10.3 Cost of the petition may also be given.”

¶26

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No.3 (Superintendent of Police, District- Durg) is bound to register F.I.R. when receives complaint of cognizable offence. The petitioner gave complaint to the S.P. on 06.02.2026 disclosing cognizable offences against respondent No.4 and other persons

¶27

¶28

involved, but respondent No.3 has not registered offence against the respondent No.4. The petitioner further submits that respondent No. 4, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, developed close proximity with the petitioner during his posting at Jamul Police Station (2013-2014) and misused his official position to gain access to her business and property affairs, thereafter inducing her in respect of land at Village Kohka (Khasra Nos. 2049, 2023/2, 2071/2, 2023/1 and 2071/1) to pay Rs.10,00,000/- and execute an agreement to sell dated 18.02.2023 on the false assurance that it was a mere formality for removal of an unlawful tenant, which document is now being misused to exert pressure through frivolous proceedings. Further, he induced rental arrangements with defaulting occupants claiming his protection and has also dishonestly retained a company-owned Mahindra Scorpio-N bearing Registration No. CG-05-AP-5000, and by virtue of his position is shielding himself and his associates, leaving the Petitioner constrained to approach this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 677 .

¶29

4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the grievance of the petitioner can be very well redressed before the Court below by filing an application under Section 156(3) or 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

¶30

¶31

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 vs. 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.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

Manpreet

Smt. Sangeeta Ketan Shah v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sangeeta Ketan Shah 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

Swapnil Mittal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Milan Bargah Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nilesh Kumar Vs the Board of Revenue

Dheluram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Kumar Patil Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nashimuddin Vs State of Chhattisgarh