1 2025:CGHC:25166-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 321 of 2025 N. Madhu W/o N. Murali Aged About 30 Years R/o Camp-1 Sundar Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent Of Police Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Station House Officer Police Station Chawni, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Vivek Poddar S/o Shambhu Poddar Aged About 30 Years (Constable No. 829) R/o Camp-1 Sundar Nagar, Bhilai P.S. Chawni Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kiran Jain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.06.19 10:38:17 +0530 2 18.06.2025 1. Heard Ms. Kiran Jain, 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 call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondent for its kind perusal. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to protect the petitioner as well as direct the respondent No. 2 and 3 to take action against the respondent No.4 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 & 3 to and registered crime against respondent No. 4 in according to law. 10.4 Cost of the litigation/petition be allowed. 10.5 Any other relief(s) may be given to the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case..” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No.3 is bound to register F.I.R. when receives complaint of cognizable 3 offence. The petitioner gave complaint to the S.P. on 15-07-204 and respondents No.2 and 3 have not completed preliminary enquiry and not registered offence against the respondent No.4. Being a police constable, respondent No.4 gave threat to the petitioner and her minor child, therefore it is a fit case to give protection to the petitioner. The investigating agency is committing delay in the investigation/registration of F.I.R in order to save respondent No.4, because he is police constable. 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 2020 (Akhilesh Agrawal vs. 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. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before appropriate Forum. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet