1 2025:CGHC:47962-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 512 of 2025 1 - Sanjeet @ Sanjeev Haldhar S/o Late Sukhranjan Haldhar, Aged About 45 Years R/o P.V.- 39, Indraprasth, P.S. And Tehsil - Pakhanjur, District - Kanker (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Prabhati Haldhar, W/o Sanjeet Haldhar, Aged About 37 Years R/o P.V.- 39, Indraprasth, P.S. And Tehsil - Pakhanjur, District - Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its - Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director General Of Police, State Of Chhattisgarh, Phq, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Inspector General Of Police, Bastar Range, Bastar, District - Jagdalpur (C.G.) 4 - The Superintendent Of Police, District - North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) 5 - Station House Officer, P.S.- Chhote Bithiya, Pakhanjur, District - North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) 6 - Smt. Ratna Haldhar, W/o Late Sameer Haldhar, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- P.V.- 39, Indraprasth, P.S. And Tehsil - Pakhanjur, District - Kanker (C.G.) Presently- P.V.- 92, Dharampur, P.S.- Chhote Bithiya, Tehsil - Bandhe, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.09.19 10:28:44 +0530 2 7 - Kamlesh Bain, S/o Robin Bain, Aged About 40 Years R/o - P.V.- 92, Dharmapur, P.S. - Bazar Chowk, Chhote Bithiya, Tehsil - Bandhe, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 8 - Amlesh Bain, S/o Robin Bain, Aged About 35 Years R/o - P.V.- 92, Dharmapur, P.S. - Bazar Chowk, Chhote Bithiya, Tehsil - Bandhe, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 9 - Robin Bain, S/o Late Badal Bain, Aged About 61 Years R/o - P.V.- 92, Dharmapur, P.S. - Bazar Chowk, Chhote Bithiya, Tehsil - Bandhe, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 10 - Smt. Tara Bain, W/o Robin Bain, Aged About 55 Years R/o - P.V.- 92, Dharmapur, P.S. - Bazar Chowk, Chhote Bithiya, Tehsil - Bandhe, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.N. Nande and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Keshwarwani, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Nande and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Keshwarwani, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents / State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “a. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent 3 authorities to for proper investigation of the case evaluating the statement of the witnesses and complaints and evidence submitted by the Petitioners in relation to the homicidal death of deceased Sameer Haldhar. b. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction to the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Pakhanjur, to expedite the proceedings initiated under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [unregistered] and since it is pending from long time without any proceeding on the police report submitted by the concerned police station, without any further delay. c. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow any other relief which the Court deems fit and proper with cost of petition.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are a married couple and the deceased, Sameer Haldhar, was the real brother of petitioner No.1. The petitioners and the deceased were residing in close proximity at Pakhanjur, while the in-laws of the deceased resided at Village Chhote Bithiya, situated about 20 km away. On 17.04.2023, the deceased Sameer, accompanied by his wife Ratna Haldhar and their minor son, visited the residence of the petitioners. On the same day, a serious altercation took place between Sameer and his wife Ratna. During this quarrel, petitioner No.1 received a telephonic call from his sister, which he kept active, resulting in the conversation being recorded. Thereafter, Ratna, along with Sameer and their son, 4 proceeded to her maternal home at Village Chhote Bithiya. On 19.04.2023, the petitioners suddenly received information that Sameer had met with an accident and was admitted to Vandana Hospital, Pakhanjur. The injured had been shifted to the hospital from a place near the petitioners’ residence, yet no intimation of the incident was given to them. They came to know of the occurrence only through their sister at Jagdalpur. Upon reaching the hospital, the petitioners found that Sameer had sustained grievous injuries on his head, nose, and other parts of the body, to which he succumbed. Initially, they were told it was a road accident; however, the minor son of the deceased disclosed that Sameer had been assaulted and beaten to death by his wife Ratna in connivance with her parents and brothers. On 20.04.2023, a postmortem was conducted, which revealed multiple injuries and a punctured liver. Yet, the cause of death was recorded as a road accident. A Merg intimation (No. 00/2023) was registered and, after conducting panchnama, the dead body was handed over to the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners lodged a written complaint before the police and simultaneously submitted an application to the Chief Health and Medical Officer, Kanker, pointing out that the postmortem report failed to detail the head injuries. Acting on this, the Chief Medical Officer was directed to enquire within seven days. In the meantime, owing to persistent representations by the petitioners, FIR No. 08/2023 dated 03.06.2023 was registered under Section 304A IPC. Subsequently, the petitioners submitted further 5 applications apprehending homicidal death and seeking registration of a case of murder. The matter also appeared in local news channels and newspapers. On these developments, the police approached the Court of JMFC, Pakhanjur, obtained permission for re-postmortem, and pursuant thereto the body was exhumed and a fresh postmortem was conducted. On directions of the Collector/District Magistrate, statements of the petitioners and others were recorded wherein allegations of murder were levelled against Ratna and her family. However, the Superintendent of Police submitted a report holding the allegations “not proved”. Dissatisfied with the perfunctory enquiry, the petitioners moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the JMFC, Pakhanjur. Though the JMFC directed submission of an enquiry report, the police submitted it belatedly on 26.11.2024, after an inordinate delay of about one and a half years, and till date no further order has been passed. The petitioners submitted that several circumstances and material evidence clearly point towards the homicidal death of Sameer Haldhar. The petitioners are in possession of audio and video recordings relating to the incident, apart from the categorical disclosure of the minor son of the deceased who clearly stated that his father was murdered. Despite such material, the police authorities, in collusion with the private respondents and certain medical officers, concocted a false narrative of road accident, deliberately suppressing the truth. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities in failing to properly register and investigate the 6 unnatural death of Sameer Haldhar is illegal, arbitrary and a gross violation of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is urged that although clear circumstances suggested a homicidal death, the authorities initially refrained from registering any FIR, and even when compelled, registered the same only under Section 304A IPC, instead of Section 302 IPC. Counsel submits that such failure, despite the disclosure made by the minor son of the deceased and availability of material evidence, shows deliberate suppression of facts in collusion with the private respondents and certain medical officers. It is further submitted that the conduct of the police in refusing to register a proper FIR is in direct violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, where it was held that registration of FIR is mandatory in cases disclosing a cognizable offence. Learned counsel also contends that the belated and ineffective response of the learned JMFC, who failed to ensure timely and effective monitoring of the investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, has further resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued for registration of FIR under the proper penal provisions and for ensuring a fair, impartial and unbiased investigation into the homicidal death of Sameer Haldhar. 5. Learned State counsel, per contra, opposes the petition and submits that the allegations levelled by the petitioners are unfounded and exaggerated. It is contended that immediately upon receiving information, merg intimation was registered and postmortem was 7 conducted in accordance with procedure. On the basis of material available at the relevant time, FIR under Section 304A IPC was registered, as the circumstances indicated an accidental death. It is further submitted that on the persistent representations of the petitioners, re-postmortem was duly conducted after obtaining orders from the competent Court, and the investigation was carried out under the supervision of senior officers, including the Superintendent of Police and the Collector/District Magistrate. Learned State counsel submits that the enquiry report prepared by the Superintendent of Police has categorically concluded that the allegation of homicidal death was not proved. It is also contended that the minor child’s statement cannot be treated as conclusive evidence at this stage, and the petitioners’ allegations of collusion between police officials and medical officers are baseless and unsubstantiated. It is urged that the investigating authorities have acted fairly, and the Magistrate is already seized of the matter under Section 156(3) CrPC, hence the present petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioners’ grievance essentially relates to the pendency of their application filed under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. In the considered opinion of this Court, it would be appropriate that the said application is decided 8 expeditiously by the competent Court. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Magistrate concerned, to consider and decide the petitioners’ pending application under Section 156(3) CrPC, strictly in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet