1 2025:CGHC:10990-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 130 of 2025 Smt. Ramin Bai Netam W/o Balram Singh Netam Aged About 40 Years R/o Viilage- Kotmisonar, Police Station- Akaltara, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Secretary Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribe Commission, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Collector District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4. The Superintendent of Police Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5. The Station House OfÏcer Police Station, Adim Jati Kalyan Thana, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6. Ajeem Mohammed S/o Mohammed Safi Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Kotmisonar, Police Station- Akaltara, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.03.06 18:42:23 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent No. 5 to correct the date of incident as 22.07.2024 in place of 24.07.2024 in the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 369 of 2024 registered at Police Station, Akaltara, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) against the respondent No. 6 for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296 and 332(c) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 10.2 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and she is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kotmisonar. The respondent No. 6 an elected Panch of Ward No. 16 of Gram Panchayat, Kotmisonar. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 3 on 22.07.2024, the respondent No. 6 entered into the house of petitioner and demanded money from her, but as the petitioner refused to give money to the respondent No. 6, then he abused her with the petitioner with filthy and derogative languages in the name of her caste and also threatened her for dire consequences. The respondent No. 6 has also obtained the signature over 10 letter pads and the same is being misused by the respondent No. 6 and threatened for falsely implicating the petitioner in criminal case. He also submits that the petitioner made written complaint before the Police Station, Akaltara and the concerned Police Station, Akaltara has registered the FIR bearing Crime No. 369 of 2024 against the respondent No. 6 for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296 and 332(c) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, but in the said FIR the date of incident is incorrectly mentioned as 24.07.2024, whereas the petitioner has lodged report for the incident dated 22.07.2024. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while lodging the FIR, the petitioner has specifically informed about the date of incident i.e. 22.07.2024 at about 4.00 p.m., but as the date of incident was not mentioned in the written complaint, therefore, by taking advantages of same, the Police authorities have incorrectly mentioned the date of incident as 24.07.2024 in the FIR. He further contended that immediately after knowledge of incorrect entry of date of incident in the aforesaid FIR No. 369 of 2024, the petitioner has made written request before the respondent No. 4 on 12.11.2024 for correcting the date of incident as 22.07.2024 in place of 24.07.2024 in FIR No. 369 of 2024, but till date the date of incident has not been corrected in the FIR. 4 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on 19.11.2024, the petitioner has also made a complaint before the Secretary, State Scheduled Tribe Commission, Raipur (C.G.) for correcting the date of incident in the FIR No. 369 of 2024 as 22.07.2024 in place of 24.07.2024, but till date no action has been taken on the application of the petitioner. Further, the offence under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘Act of 1989’) has not been added while registering the FIR. Hence, this petition. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the writ petition along with the annexures annexed in this case. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the it is open for the petitioner to move before the authority/Court concerned for correction of the date of incident in the FIR at the time of submission of final report, if any. Insofar as adding the offence under the Act of 1989 is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to move before the competent Court after collection of any evidence to that effect. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan