Dismissed¶¶31

Rohit Kumar Lader v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Feb 2026WPCR/80/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court writ petition (WPCR) dismissed; refusal to direct registration of FIR on complaint dated 27.06.2025 re incident dated 25.06.2025 at Satnam Nagar, Korba; alternative remedy route under Section 156(3)/200 Cr.P.C., now Section 175(3)/223 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; preventive proceedings under Sections 126 and 135(3) BNSS 2023 against petitioners; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act allegations; Articles 14 and 21 Constitution; liberty to approach appropriate forum; precedents noted: Waseem Haider (Allahabad HC, Misc. Bench No. 24492 of 2020, 14.12.2020) and Akhilesh Agrawal (WPCR No. 333 of 2020, 12.04.2023); bench: Ramesh Sinha CJ and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal J; NAFR; 2026:CGHC:6725-DB.

What did the court decide?

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

Rohit Kumar Lader 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.

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondents No. 2 and 3 should be directed to immediately register an F.I.R. against the private person based on the complaint dated 27.06.2025 and investigate the matter in accordance with law. +1 more

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

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

¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

2026:CGHC:6725-DB (NAFR) — WPCR No. 80 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, order dated 06.02.2026, Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice (coram: Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge). Rohit Kumar Lader, a senior citizen and retired Headmaster, sought writ directions to Respondents 2 and 3 (Superintendent of Police and Station House Officer, Korba) to immediately register an F.I.R. on his complaint dated 27.06.2025 regarding a violent incident dated 25.06.2025 — assault on minor children and women, filthy and caste-based slurs, illegal demand of ₹60,000/-, threats and outraging of modesty, with disclosed cognizable offences including under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — and to provide police protection; he further complained that police instead initiated preventive proceedings against the petitioners themselves under Sections 126 and 135(3) of BNSS, 2023, alleging violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. State counsel submitted the grievance was redressable before the Court below under Section 156(3) or 200 Cr.P.C. (now Section 175(3) or Section 223 BNSS, 2023), citing the Allahabad High Court decision in Waseem Haider (Misc. Bench No. 24492 of 2020, dated 14.12.2020) and this Court's dismissal in Akhilesh Agrawal (WPCR No. 333 of 2020, decided 12.04.2023). The Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.02.07 11:32:06 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:6725-DB NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPCR No. 80 of 2026

¶6

Rohit Kumar Lader S/o Late Khubdas Lader, Aged About 62 Years Retired Headmaster (Govt. Middle School), R/o Mohalla Satnam Nagar, Ward No. 36, Balco Ring Road, Korba, District Korba (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - The Superintendent of Police District Korba (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line, Rampur, Korba District Korba (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Anju Ahuja, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate

¶14

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

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶17

06.02.2026

¶18

1 Heard Ms. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents.

¶19

¶20

2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):-

¶21

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents Respondents No. 2 and 3 to immediately register an F.I.R. against the Private Person based on the complaint dated 27.06.2025 and investigate the matter in accordance with law.

¶22

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a direction to the Respondent Authorities to provide adequate police protection since private respondents are harassing and giving threats.

¶23

10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which may deem fit.”

¶24

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a senior citizen and retired Headmaster, along with other residents of Satnam Nagar belonging to the Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste community, are victims of a violent incident dated 25.06.2025 wherein the private persons, in an intoxicated condition, assaulted minor children and women, used filthy and caste-based slurs, illegally demanded ₹60,000/-, issued threats to life and outraged the modesty of women in public view. The incident arose out of a false and concocted allegation regarding damage to a bus hired for a marriage procession held on

¶25

¶26

21.06.2025. Despite clear disclosure of cognizable offences including assault, extortion, criminal intimidation and offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the police failed to register an FIR. It is further submitted that repeated representations made to the Superintendent of Police and other higher authorities yielded no result. Instead of acting against the accused private persons, the respondent police authorities acted in a biased and mala fide manner and initiated preventive proceedings against the petitioners themselves under Sections 126 and 135(3) of BNSS, 2023, thereby further victimizing the victims. Such inaction and discriminatory treatment is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, compelling the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal and protection of his fundamental rights.

¶27

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 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

¶28

¶29

2020 ( Akhilesh Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others )

¶30

decided on 12.04.2023 , dismissing the said petition, hence, the present petition be also dismissed in terms of the said order.

¶31