1 2025:CGHC:52910 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3267 of 2025 Bachan Das Sahu S/o Late Khuman Das Sahu Aged About 61 Years Resident Of Village- And Post- Latabod, Tahsil And District- Balod (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Inspector General Of Police Durg Division Durg District- Durg Chhattisgarh, 3 - Superintendent Of Police Balod Distt- Balod (C.G.) 4 - The Station House Officer Police Station Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) 5 - Pankaj Kumar S/o Aghandas Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Katchari Chowk, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. 6 - Dushyant Das Sahu S/o Indraman Das Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Village And Post Ranitarai, P.S. Suregaon Tahsil Devri (Bangla) At Present Address Near Electricity Office Arjunda Road, Suregaon, Tahsil Devri Bangla District- Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. AG 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 30/10/2025 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s): “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by directing the respondent no. 1 to 4 to take appropriate legal action against the respondents no. 5 & 6 upon complaint of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction to the respondents police authorities to take appropriate legal action against culprit upon the complaint made by the petitioner at the earliest, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the respondent - police authorities was not good and they are supporting the respondents no. 5 & 6 although it was a clearly shown that after seeing all the necessary document the police has not registered the FIR against the respondents no. 5 & 6. He further contended that the accused respondents no. 5 & 6 have illegal collected huge amount in the name of the bogus hermitage or fake spiritual retreat Ashram in 3 Chhattisgarh State place till today due to this, petitioner/complainant has great losses. He further contended that the petitioner has also given donation amount of Rs.3,000/- to the private respondents. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties. On being asked by this Court, counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that the petitioner has not filed any receipt of donation. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced and the material available on record, this Court finds no substance in the allegations made by the petitioner. The record does not disclose any prima facie evidence of deliberate inaction or mala fide conduct on the part of the respondent police authorities. The allegations against the private respondents are general in nature and unsupported by cogent proof. Hence, no ground is made out for interference. 7. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant