1 2025:CGHC:3581-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 225 of 2025 Hetram Sahu S/o Tularam Sahu Aged About 37 Years Resident Of Village Katainar, Post Banki Mongara, Police Station Banki Mongara, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Banki Mongara, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Superintendent Of Police Korba, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Ramlal Chouhan S/o Malik Ram Chouhan Aged About 77 Years Resident Of Village Kudaripara, Main Road, Infront Of Hatari, Banki Mongara, Post And Police Station Banki Mongara, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.01.21 18:03:58 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is, therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and also be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 03-01-2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) and the application under Section 156 (3) of CRPC may also be set-aside (relates to the petitioner is concerned), in the interest of justice.” 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed the petition of the co-accused, namely, Pramod Dansena in CRMP No. 188/2025 (Pramod Dansena vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) vide order dated 20.01.2025, observing as follows : “3. On 17.01.2025, the following order was passed :- "Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. 3 Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2/State. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner, who is the Police personnal seeking quashment of impugned order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) (for short, 'Magistrate'), whereby the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent No. 3 has been allowed and the Superintendent of Police, Korba has been directed to register the FIR against the petitioner and after investigation the final report has been directed to be submitted. He further states that the order of the learned Magistrate is not only illegal and erroneous, but is also contrary to the well settled legal principles. On a pointed query being made by the learned State counsel whether FIR has been registered or not, learned State counsel states that no FIR has been registered against the petitioner till date. The Superintendent of Police, Korba, is directed to file his personal affidavit calling upon the explanation on the Station House Officer as to why the FIR has not been registered against the petitioner till date despite the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 03.01.2025 for registering the FIR against the petitioner. 4 A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Korba, through the learned State counsel for information and necessary action forthwith. Let this matter be placed before this Court for consideration of the personal affidavit that would be filed by the Superintendent of Police, Korba, on 20.01.2025." ” 4. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, it has been stated by learned State counsel that in compliance of the Court's order dated 17.01.2025, an affidavit has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Korba, whereby it has been informed that FIR has been lodged against the petitioner on 17.01.2025. 5. Considering the fact that FIR has already been lodged against the petitioner on 17.01.2025, we do not find any good ground for interference in the present matter. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to the FIR which as been lodged against him.” 4. They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of CRMP No. 188/2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to CRMP No. 188/2025, this Court deems it appropriate 5 not to take a view other than what has been taken in CRMP No. 188/2025. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 20.01.2025 passed in CRMP No. 188/2025. 7. The petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to the FIR which has been lodged against him. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet