1 2025:CGHC:22361-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 297 of 2025 Seema Choudhary @ Seema Singh D/o Shiv Bahadur Singh Chauhan, aged about 51 years R/o Near Magistrate Bungalow, Shivaji Nagar, Amokha, Lashkar, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Addl. Adv. General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27 . 05 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.S. Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Respondent ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 No.1 (Police Authorities, Police Station Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh) to refrain from taking any coercive or adverse action against the Petitioner in connection with Crime no. 319/2016, registered at Police station Balod, for the offences u/s 420, 24 of the IPC and section 3,4,5 of The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and section 10 of the Protection of depositors interest act, or any related proceedings, in absence of any specific allegation or legal basis; 10.2 That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favor of the petitioner safeguarding their interest.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged against her ex-husband Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, Director of Devyani Properties Ltd, from whom she has been lawfully divorced since 11.03.2022. He further submitted that in 2010, without her consent, the petitioner was wrongfully appointed as an Additional Director of Devyani Properties Limited and upon learning of the same, she promptly resigned on 23.01.2010, severing all connection with the Company. The petitioner has no present role, knowledge or participation in the affairs of the said Company and has even intimated the Registrar of Companies in 2017 to absolve herself of any liability, despite this, police officers from Police Station, Balod Chhattisgarh have twice visited her residence in Gwalior in 2025 without any prior notice, allegedly in connection with an FIR registered against her ex-husband or the said Company. He further submitted that the 3 action of the respondent No.1 in making repeated visits to the residence of petitioner, without issuance of any prior notice or communication and without disclosing any basis or reason is in gross violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he prays from issuance of a direction to respondent No.1 to refrain from taking any coercive or adverse action against the petitioner in connection with Crime no. 319/2016, registered at Police station Balod, for the offences u/s 420, 24 of the IPC and section 3,4,5 of The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 10 of the Protection of Depositors Interest Act, or any related proceedings, in absence of any specific allegation or legal basis. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has pointed out that the petitioner was one of Director of the alleged Company and though in pursuance to the Crime No. 139/2016 registered at Police Station, Balod, which is an organized crime, the name of the petitioner has not been disclosed, but it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was one of the Director of the alleged Company and in similarly situated offence i.e. Crime No. 140/2015, which is also an organized crime, the petitioner is also wanted and final report has also been submitted against the petitioner along with the other co-accused persons in the said case. He further pointed out that from perusal of the prayers made in the writ petition, it 4 goes to show that the petitioner has only prayed for interim protection for no coercive action without seeking quashment of FIR which has been registered against her ex-husband and others. 5. Considering the prayers and pleadings made in the writ petition and rivals submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and further considering the fact that it is an organized crime and in a similarly situated case, in which the petitioner is also wanted, final report has also been submitted against her along with the other co-accused persons and furthermore, considering that the petitioner has prayed for only interim protection for no coercive action without seeking quashment of FIR which has been registered against her ex-husband and others, hence, we do find any good ground for interference in the present matter. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition with appropriate prayers. Sd/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra