1 2025:CGHC:573-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 506 of 2024 1 - Smt. Pushpa Pandey W/o Dinbandhu Pandey Aged About 60 Years R/o Rajgharana Colony, Ameri, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Smt. Madhu Pandey W/o Shivashankar Pandey Aged About 32 Years R/o Rajgharana Colony, Ameri, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Shivashankar Pandey S/o Dinbandhu Pandey Aged About 38 Years R/o Rajgharana Colony, Ameri, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Ravi Pathak S/o Shivji Pathak Aged About 30 Years R/o Rajgharana Colony, Ameri, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Nikhil Yadav S/o Nadhdhu Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Banjaripur, Dildar Nagar, District- Ghazipur (U.P.) At Present Resident of Rajgharana Colony, Ameri, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Gurudutt Sahu S/o Pardeshi Lal Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Jabdapara, New Sarkanda District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) --- Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Superintendent of Police Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Station House Officer Police Station, Telibandha, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondents ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.07 17:55:04 +0530 2 WPCR No. 515 of 2024 Sunil Kumar Pandey Dinbandhu Pandey Aged About 37 Years R/o River View Colony, Koni, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Police) Department , Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Superintendent of Police Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G) 3 - The Station House Officer Police Station, Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General along with Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. Since the common question has been involved in both the writ petitions being WPCR Nos.506 of 2024 and 515 of 2024, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3 3. In WPCR No.506 of 2024, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner and call for the records pertaining to the present case. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order, thereby directing the respondent No.3 not to harass the petitioners in the name of interrogation. 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents No.1 & 2 take appropriate action against the erring police personnel of Police Station, Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) for unnecessarily harassing the petitioners. 10.4 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 4. In WPCR No.515 of 2024, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner and call for the records pertaining to the present case. 4 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order, thereby directing the respondent No.3 not to harass the petitioner in the name of interrogation. 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents No.1 & 2 take appropriate action against the erring police personnel of Police Station, Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) for unnecessarily harassing the petitioner. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to return the mobiles seized from the petitioner, to the petitioner forthwith. 10.5 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 5. Learned State counsel has pointed out that notice has been issued by the Police for the purpose of interrogation to the petitioner No.4, namely Ravi Pathak and petitioner No.6, namely Gurudutt Sahu in WPCR No.506 of 2024 only on 18.12.2024 with respect to the Crime No.525/2024 registered at Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 5 6. From perusal of the photocopy of the said notice, it transpires that both the petitioners i.e. petitioner No.4, namely Ravi Pathak and petitioner No.6, namely Gurudutt Sahu in WPCR No.506 of 2024, have received the said notice, but copy of the same has not been annexed with the writ petition, to which, learned counsel for the petitioners states that though the notice was served on both the petitioners, but the copy of the same has not been given to them. 7. It goes to show that the petitioners were, in fact, aware that such notice has been issued to them and it is a question of fact whether they have received the notice or not, but admittedly, they were aware of the fact that such notice has been served on them. 8. Insofar as the petitioner No.1, namely Smt. Pushpa Pandey in WPCR No.506 of 2024 is concerned, she happens to be the mother of Sunil Kumar Pandey, who is the petitioner in WPCR No.515 of 2024 and who is facilitating in the crime to the main accused K.K. Shrivastava. 9. Learned State counsel further submitted that notice has also been issued to one Pawan Pandey, S/o Dinbandhu Pandey, to which learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioner No.3, namely Shivashankar Pandey is not known by the name of Pawan Pandey. Learned State counsel could not justify the notice, which in fact, was issued to petitioner No.3 in the present case. It has been further contended by learned State counsel that 6 all the petitioners in both the writ petitions being WPCR Nos.506 of 2024 and 515 of 2024 are not yet wanted in the present matter and only for the purpose of interrogation, notice was issued to them. 10. Insofar as Sunil Kumar Pandey, who is the petitioner in WPCR No.515 of 2024 is concerned, learned State counsel, as per instructions received, he is accompanying the main accused, namely K.K. Shrivastava, whose location was found in the State of Bihar. 11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as has been stated by learned State counsel that any of the petitioners have not been made accused in the present Crime No.525/2024 registered at Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) till date and only on the purpose of interrogation, notice has been issued to only petitioners No.4 and 6, namely Ravi Pathak and Gurudutt Sahu in WPCR No.506 of 2024 and also the fact that admittedly, no notice has been issued to petitioners No.1, 2 and 5, namely Smt. Pushpa Pandey, Smt. Madhu Pandey and Nikhil Yadav in WPCR No.506 of 2024 as well as petitioner, namely Sunil Kumar Pandey in WPCR No.515 of 2024 with respect to Crime No.525/2024 registered at Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) and further as has been stated by learned State counsel that the petitioner are 7 not being harassed by the Police, both the writ petitions being WPCR Nos.506 of 2024 and 515 of 2024 are disposed of, leaving it open to the Investigating Agency to proceed in accordance with law, if participation of any of the petitioners is found in the present cases. 12. 12. It would not out of place to mention that two petitions which were preferred by the petitioners therein for similar harassment caused to them by the Police, which have earlier come up before this Court being WPCR No.360 of 2024 & WPHC No.17 of 2024, which were disposed of by this Court vide orders dated 26.09.2024 and 19.09.2024, respectively; further, bail applications of accused K.K. Shrivastava and his son Kanchan Shrivastava have already been rejected by this Court on merits. Hence, the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh is directed to ensure that no harassment should be caused to innocent persons by the Police except in accordance with law. 13. Learned State Counsel is directed to send a copy of this order to Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu