1 2025:CGHC:21275-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 435 of 2024 Rupendra Patel S/o Shri Ghanshyam Patel Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Baihamuda, Tahsil And Police Station- Gharghoda, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Head Quarter, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent Of Police District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Sub Divisional Officer(Police) Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Station House Officer Police Station- Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sub Division Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 9 - Food Inspector Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 10 -Nripat Singh Rathiya Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Baihamuda, Block Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. BL Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. SS Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate.. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08/05/2025 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following reliefs: “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record for the respondents with regard to action taken by the respondents on the complaint of the petitioner. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to lodge First Information report against the respondent no. 10 as per recommendation made in the inquiry report dated 12.08.2024 against three person including respondent no. 10, and subsequent to that against two person registered FIR. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to strictly compliance of the inquiry report submitted before the respondent no. 8 i.e. S.D.O.(R) Gharghoda, District Raigarh, (C.G.). 3 10.4 That, any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper also be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that based on complaint lodged before the Sub Divisional Officer (R), Block Gharghoda regarding misappropriation of food-grains in the government fair price shop, an inquiry has been conducted in which embezzlement and misappropriation of food-grains in the public distribution system has been found and, thereafter, the SDO(R) Gharghoda has cancelled the allotment of the Govt Fair Price Shop, Baibamuda on 15.07.2024. In the inquiry, recommendation has been made for lodging of FIR against the three accused persons namely (1) Ashok Chauhan (Secretary), (2) Nripat Singh Rathiya (Sarpanch), (3) Gajanand Rathiya (Salseman). On the basis of inquiry report, the Collector Raigarh has directed to lodge the FIR against the accused persons, hence, the SDO(R), Gharghoda has lodged the FIR against the accused persons i.e, Ashok Chauhan (Secretary) and Gajanand Rathiya (Salesman). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per inquiry report, recommendation was made for lodging of FIR against the three accused persons namely (1) Ashok Chauhan (Secretary), (2) Nripat Singh Rathiya (Sarpanch), (3) Gajanand Rathiya (Salseman), but the SDO(R), Gharghoda has lodged the FIR only against Ashok Chauhan (Secretary) and Gajanand Rathiya 4 (Salesman) and not lodged FIR against respondent No.10/Nripat Singh Rathiya (Sarpanch), whereas he is a main operator of the alleged Govt fair price shop. Hence, it is prayed that direction be given to the concerned respondent-authority to lodge FIR against respondent No.10. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and would submit that during the investigation, statements of the relevant witnesses have duly been recorded. Complainant in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS, has categorically stated about the involvement of the Secretary Ashok Chouhan as well as the Salesman Gajanand Patel, however, she has not mentioned about the involvement of the respondent No.10/Sarpanch in her statement. Further, concerned Food Inspector has specifically observed that there was no involvement of the respondent No.10 found in the subject matter. As per the inquiry made by the concerned respondent-authority, no recommendation was made for lodging of FIR against the respondent No.10/Sarpanch. 5. Considering facts of the case, pleadings made in the petition, submissions of counsel for the petitioner, further the submission that complainant in her statement has not mentioned about the involvement of the respondent No.10/Sarpanch in crime in question, no recommendation has been made for lodging of FIR against the respondent No.10/Sarpanch, we are not inclined to allow the instant petition and interfere in the the matter. 5 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner will be at liberty to approach before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. Sd/- Sd/- /Sd- S Sd/ (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE J.