1 2025:CGHC:52514 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3220 of 2025 1 - Smt. Kantibai W/o Shri Patiram Netam Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Jamgaon, P.S.- Narharpur, Dist. Kanker, C.G. 494334. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Home Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492015 2 - Superintendent of Police Dist- Kanker, C.G. 494334 3 - Inspector General of Police Dist- Kanker, C.G. 494334 4 - Station House Officer Narharpur, Kanker, C.G. 494334 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Shri Curtis Collins, Advocate. For State : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 28.10. 202 5 1. The present is a Criminal Misc. Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for a direction to the respondent No.4/Station House Officer, Narharpur to investigate the matter and to register FIR against the named accused for the offence under Sections 191(2), 324(2), 331(3) of BNS, 2023. Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.11.06 10:47:14 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is the complainant and on her complaint an FIR of Crime No.79/2025 has been registered on 28.07.2025 for the offence under Sections 191(2), 324(4), 331(3) of BNS, 2023 against 50-60 unknown persons. The complainant have alleged in her complaint that on 28.07.2025 mischief was caused in her house by 50-60 unknown persons and destroyed her cement sheet of her rooftop. They also damaged her Fridge, Chairs, Utensils and other household articles by which the damages of about Rs.80,000/-was caused. The police registered the offence and started investigation. He would further submit that on 31.07.2025, 12.08.2025 and 13.08.2025 the complainant made her complaint to the higher police authorities disclosing the names of accused persons who were involved in the offence causing mischief to the house of the complainant on 28.07.2025, however, the police authorities are not taking any action against them and therefore a direction may be issued to the respondent No.4 to register FIR against the named accused persons and to investigate the matter against them. He would rely upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of UP & Others, 2008 (2) SCC 409. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions, would submit that on the complaint made by the complainant FIR has been registered and investigation is going on. At this stage it cannot be said that investigation of the police authorities are not proper and they are not investigating the matter in proper manner. The petition is 3 premature. The complainant cannot direct investigation in a particular manner. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. Indisputably, the FIR has been registered on 28.07.2025 on the report lodged by the petitioner. From perusal of FIR (Annexure P/2) it transpires that on the basis of a written complaint made by the complainant on 28.07.2025 an FIR has been registered. In the said written complaint the complainant has not named any accused persons, however, she disclosed that a mob of 50-60 persons including male and female persons came to her housed, caused mischief and destroyed her household articles. After registration of FIR on 31.07.2025 she made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police naming the accused persons who caused incident. Likewise, she made her complaint on 12.08.2025 and 13.08.2025 to the higher authorities. However, the fact remains that after registration of FIR the investigation is going on. The petitioner is having ample opportunity to disclose the name of accused persons at the time of recording her statement by the police and the police authorities, after collecting evidence during the investigation may file the final report if sufficient evidence is found by them during investigation. At this stage, the police authorities cannot be directed to investigate the matter in a particular manner or in a particular way. The registration of FIR has already been done and investigation is in progress. Any sort of direction or observation may affect the fair investigation of the matter. 4 6. The judgment cited and relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on the facts of the present case and no benefit could be extended in the present case. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any scope for interference in the present petition. The same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder