1 2025:CGHC:56719-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 595 of 2025 Kapoorchand Verma S/o Ramdayal Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Baiharsari, Post Sarangpurkala, Out Post Pondi, P.S. And Tahsil Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Superintendent Of Police Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Station House O+cer P.S. Kawardha, Distt. Kabridham, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Station House O+cer P.S. Mahila Thana, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.24 14:32:17 +0530 2 5 - Bindu Goswami W/o Mukesh Verma Aged About 24 Years R/o In Front Of Saw Mill, Near River, Village Pondi, Out Post Pondi, P.S. And Tahsil Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21.11.2025 1. The present WPCR has been 5led with the following prayer:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to refrain from harassing, summoning or threatening the Petitioner in any manner in connection with the alleged complaint of Respondent No. 5, unless an FIR is registered after due inquiry and notice u/s 41A Cr.P.C. is issued. 3 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order directing the respondent No.4 to not lodge any report against the petitioner on application +led by the respondent No.5 as the entire story shows that the parties are well educated and the acts have been done with their free will and consent. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to register a +rst information report against Respondent No. 5 for o-ences threatening and illegal demand from the petitioner. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct an independent inquiry by a senior o.cer not below the rank of DSP into the conduct of the Station House O.cer, Mahila Thana, Kawardha, for abuse of power and collusion with Respondent No. 5. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant exemplary costs and compensation to the Petitioner for mental agony and harassment. 10.6 That, any other writs and direction which this Hon'ble Court deems +t and just in the facts and circumstances of 4 the case be granted to the petitioner withe cost of the petition. 2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner and respondent No. 5, both residents of Village Pondi, were in a consensual live-in relationship since 2020 and resided together as husband and wife at Kawardha. On 07.04.2025, they executed a Memorandum of Understanding recording their relationship and shared household articles. Thereafter, disputes arose and respondent No. 5 expressed her desire to end the relationship, leading to an agreement dated 07.07.2025 whereby she received ₹5,00,000/- from the petitioner in full settlement, and both parties agreed not to lodge any complaints against each other. The petitioner alleges that despite the settlement, respondent No. 5 began threatening him to pay an additional ₹5,00,000/- and threatened to implicate him in a false rape case. She allegedly transferred about ₹1,30,000/- to the petitioner’s bank account from her own and her sister’s accounts and later claimed that the petitioner had demanded money; the petitioner transferred back about ₹1,50,000/-. The petitioner claims that on 27.10.2025, respondent No. 5 showed him a written 5 complaint alleging assault and rape and demanded money for withdrawing it. Upon his refusal, she submitted the complaint to Mahila Thana, Kawardha. The petitioner states that the police supported respondent No. 5, refused to register his complaint, and pressured him to pay her. He thereafter submitted written applications to Police Station Kawardha on 28.10.2025 and to the Superintendent of Police on 31.10.2025, but no action was taken. He further alleges that although no FIR has been registered against him, the Mahila Thana is repeatedly calling him and sending constables to his residence, causing harassment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the continuous harassment meted out to the petitioner by respondents No. 1 to 3, particularly the Station House O+cer, Mahila Thana, Kawardha, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and mala 5de. Despite there being no FIR, no complaint registered against him, and no notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C., the petitioner is repeatedly summoned through constables and threatened with false implication in a rape case solely to coerce him to pay an additional amount of ₹5,00,000/– to respondent No. 5. It is submitted that the relationship between the petitioner and 6 respondent No. 5 was consensual, duly recorded in writings dated 07.04.2025 and 07.07.2025, under which all disputes were mutually settled and ₹5,00,000/– was already paid. However, respondent No. 5, in collusion with the police, is now blackmailing the petitioner by threatening false allegations, and the police, instead of acting on the petitioner’s complaints, have become recovery agents, refusing to register his report and even taking signatures of his brother without authority. 4. It is further submitted that the police have no power under any law to summon a citizen without a registered FIR or written notice, and such illegal actions violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, which mandates that no arrest or coercive steps can be taken in oEences punishable up to seven years without strict compliance of statutory safeguards. The conduct of the police amounts to criminal intimidation, causing severe mental harassment to the petitioner. Despite written representations to the Station House O+cer and the Superintendent of Police, no action has been taken, leaving 7 the petitioner with no alternative but to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and states that he has sought instruction from the concerned Police Station that the respondent no. 5 had lodged a complaint against the petitioner. Both of them having living relationship. 6. From the submission advanced by the learned State counsel, it emerges that respondent No. 5 had submitted a complaint against the petitioner alleging certain disputes arising out of their live-in relationship. It is further stated that both parties had appeared before the concerned Police Station, where the matter was amicably settled between them without any written compromise. Subsequently, the petitioner himself lodged a complaint against respondent No. 5, indicating that there is an existing dispute between the parties. In view of the said factual position placed by the State, this Court 5nds that the matter essentially pertains to disputed facts arising out of a private relationship between the parties. 8 7. In view of the same, we are not inclined to entertain the matter leaving it open to the petitioner to take recourse to law, which is available to him. 8. Accordingly, the WPCR is dismissed with the liberty as stated supra. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib