1 2025:CGHC:14715-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 169 of 2025 Narinder Singh Mehta S/o Pratap Singh Mehta Aged About 68 Years R/o Gobind Valley Rupnagar Punjab - 140001 ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. City Kotwali Thana Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla and Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocates For State/respondent : Mr. Shanshank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27.03 .2025 1 Heard Mr. Vaibhav Shukla and Ms. Astha Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent. 2 By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.04.01 10:47:57 +0530 2 “(i) That, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of prohibition to prevent the police authorities from harassing the Petitioner. (ii) That, the Hon’ble Court may be please to issue appropriate writ quashing the notice dated 22.02.2025 issued by Respondent. (iii) That, the Hon’ble Court may issue appropriate writ directing the respondents to forbear from taking any coercive steps or action or proceeding against the petitioner in the connection of the FIR 96/2016 and 182/2016. (iv) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 3 Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that, the petitioner having served the nation as an officer in the Border Security Force (BSF), he was posted at Jalandhar Punjab Frontier till August 2014 and has never been involved in any criminal activity. The petitioner has received notice dated 25.02.2025 whereby, notice was issued to the Tehsildar, Ropar, by the Police Station City Kotwali Thana Surajpur, seeking information about the movable and immovable properties of the petitioner declared him as an "absconding accused" in connection with the FIR No.96/2016 and 182/2016," despite no prior attempts to contact or summon the petitioner through proper legal channels. 3 4 The present petition pertains to PACL Limited, a company against which the CBI lodged an FIR in the March, 2014 and the business operations of PACL were subsequently stopped in July, 2014 by the SEBI. At that relevant time, the petitioner was not the Director of the company and later, the petitioner was appointed as independent Director on 08.02.2016 after persuasion from his known fellow mates only in order to ensure compliance at the level of various state agencies and judicial forums as after the entire controversy was unfurled, it was essential to nominate a person who can bring things in control and the petitioner only with motive to cleanse the system, ensure compliance at the level of Lodha Committee joined PACL for a fixed tenure and ceased to hold office from 15.09.2022. The petitioner has accepted position solely to assist the Lodha Committee and other investigative agencies on a requirement basis, in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to facilitate the return of money to investors. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as an independent Director on Feb 2016 with two primary tasks: (a) to assist the Lodha Committee and other investigative agencies and (b) to reply to Court matters in a timely manner and work according to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the petitioner diligently performed these assigned tasks and regularly responded to inquiries from courts and other agencies. As an independent Director, the petitioner was not involved in the day-to-day activities of the company and only used the office and 4 official agency offices as and when required for compliance purposes. The petitioner has never been involved in any decision- making processes in either PACL Ltd. or PGF Ltd. and he was not part of any board meetings prior to his appointment as an independent Director 5 It is the further case of the petitioner that on 21.02.2025, at about 10:40 PM, a police team from Chhattisgarh in civil dress unexpectedly visited his residence when he was out of station due to the death of a close relative and only his wife and daughter (Lt. Commander Aakriti Mehta) were present at home. The police officials entered into the house of the petitoner with an intent to conduct a search and when his wife asked them to produce a search warrant or any other legal document, they began preparing documents while sitting in his house. On the very next day, on 22.02.2025, police officials again visited the house of the petitioner during the forenoon, when his wife again requested them to show any legal document authorizing their visit, but no documents has been provided. Thereafter, the Petitioner personally spoke to these officials on the phone and explained at length about his tenure and position in the PACL matter. The petitioner also asked for the officer's name and rank, but the officer refused to provide the same. 6 The petitioner came to know about his alleged connection to the FIRs only when a notice dated 22.02.2025 was issued mentioning 5 FIR Nos.96/2016 and 182/2016 and no allegation in any of these FIRs has been made against the petitioner. 7 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been informed whether they have been summoned as an accused or as a witness. It has been submitted that as per Section 35 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, if arrest is not required, the police officer is required to issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made to appear before him, but in the present case, no such notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the visiting the house of the petitioner. It has been further submitted that as per Section 44 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, no search of a place can be conducted at night except in exceptional circumstances, and that too with proper authorization, but in the present case, the police officers had visited the house of the petitioner without any notice, summon, search warrant or exceptional circumstances, which is clear violation of the procedure prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It has been contended that as per Sections 96 and 97 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, a search of any place can only be conducted based on a search warrant issued by a competent court of law, but in the present case, the police officers entered into the petitioner's premises without any search warrant and started enquire of search and according to 6 Section 84 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Surksha Sanhita, issuance of warrant is to be before declaring absconding to that person, but in the present case, such notice has not been issued to the petitioner. It has been argued that the petitioner has already retired from his position as an independent Director in PACL Limited on 07.02.2021 and there is no connection of petitioner with FIR Nos.96/2016 and 182/2016, therefore, the petitioner could not have been part of any criminal conspiracy or illegal activity that had already concluded before his appointment and the implication of the petitioner at this belated stage is without any substantive evidence. It has been further argued that the petitioner served in the Border Security Force (BSF) as an officer for 35 years, joining in 1981 and retiring on 31.08.2014 with an exemplary record and throughout their distinguished career, they held critical positions in anti-insurgency, anti-militancy, anti- trafficking, and vigilance operations, playing a pivotal role in safeguarding national security. He actively participated in the Kargil War and were posted across multiple strategic frontiers, including Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, and the Northeast (Agartala Frontier Headquarters). Notably and he was amongst the select few deputed as a United Nations Peacekeeper in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as his service has been marked by the highest standards of integrity, professionalism, and unwavering dedication to duty, as such, the petition be allowed and notice dated 22.02.2025 be quashed and respondents be directed not to 7 take any coercive steps against the petitioner. 8 On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable as no interference is warranted by this Court. 9 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 10 From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Police of Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, has declared the petitioner as “absconder” in connection with Crime Nos.96/2016 and 182/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 as well as Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Act, 2005 and an information about his movable and immovable properties are required from the Tahsildar, Ropar, District Rupnagar, Punjab. 11 Considering the matter in its entirety as well as appreciating the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, particularly, the fact that the show cause notice issued to the Tahsildar Ropar, District Rupnagar, Punjab and not to the petitioner and his name has not been finds place in the FIRs in question for the aforementioned offences, which has been committed by the 8 Company in question where the petitioner is the Director and various FIRs have been registered against the office bearers of the Company, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for grant of any relief to the petitioner. 12 The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu