1 2025:CGHC:9303-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 109 of 2025 Bibhas Das (In Person) S/o Respected Late Sukumar Das Aged About 57 Years Permanent Address- C/o Reverend Maa, Smt. Kamala Das, Itina Colony, Block-C, P.O. Banipur, Police Station Habra, Dist. North 24 Parganas, West Bengal Pin. 743233 Postal Address For Correspondence Post Box No. 16, Head Post Office, 495001 Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Hereinafter Referred To As The Petitioner) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mr. D. S. Tomar R/o Bungalow No. V-20/2, Bungalow Yard, Secr, Bilaspur, P.O. Bilaspur, Ps. Tarbhar Police Station Dist. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Pin 495004. Permanent R/o Agyay Nagar, Bilaspur P.O. Bilaspur Ps. Civil Line Police Station Dist Bilaspur, Cg Pin 495001 And Controlling Officer's Address- The General Manager, South East Central Railway, 5th Floor Gm Building Bilaspur, Ps. Torwa Police Station, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Pin 495004 ... Respondents (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN 2 Petitioner in person : Mr. Bibhas Das. For Respondents No. 1 & 3 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. S.G. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24/02/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following reliefs: “In light of the aforementioned legal grounds, the petitioner respectfully prays for the following reliefs from this Hon'ble Court: I. Issuance of a Writ of Mandamus: Direct Respondent No. 2 to register an FIR against Respondent No. 3 for the misuse of the petitioner's digital signature code in violation of constitutional and statutory provisions. II. Disciplinary Action: a. Direct the Respondent No.1 to initiate disciplinary proceedings under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, and impose appropriate penalties on Respondent No. 3 for acts of misconduct, abuse of power, and constitutional violations. III. Criminal Prosecution: a. Invoke provisions of the Bharatiya Nyay 3 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against Respondents No. 3. b. Economic exploitation under Section 3(1)(v) of the Atrocities Act. c. Harassment and violation of dignity under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. d. Failure to prevent exploitation under Section 4 of the Atrocities Act. e. Economic exploitation under Section 3(1)(v). f. Harassment and violation of dignity 3(1)(x). under section g. Failure of public servants under Sections 3(1)(v), 3(1)(x), and 4 of the Scheduled Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989 to prevent such acts. IV. Compensation: a. Direct the respondents to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner for the violation of constitutional rights, mental agony, and harassment suffered due to the misconduct of Respondent No. 3. V. Any Other Relief: Pass such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.“ 2. The petitioner would submit that he has made complaint against respondent No. 3 for misuse of the petitioner’s digital signature code 4 (DSC). He submits that the respondent No.3 has misused the DSC for the financial corruption in the name of the petitioner and also misuse the same against the interest of the Sovereignty and integrity of Country, but the respondent authorities have not taken any action upon complaint of the petitioner till today. 3. 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 Cr.P.C. (now under Section 175(3) or under Section 223 of the 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 and 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. 4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before appropriate Forum. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved