1 2025:CGHC:56706-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 383 of 2025 1 - Durga Devi Katholiya W/o Late Durgendra Katholiya Aged About 34 Years R/o Village 19-Bhawarmara, Singhola, Tahsil Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattsgarh (Complainants) 2 - Laxman Sonkar S/o Hirauram Sonkar Aged About 65 Years R/o Village 19-Bhawarmara, Singhola, Tahsil Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 3 - Sushila Sonkar W/o Laxman Sonkar Aged About 55 Years R/o Village 19-Bhawarmara, Singhola, Tahsil Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.21 17:17:43 +0530 2 2 - Director General Of Police, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Of Police, Rajnandgaon, District-Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector, Dhamtari District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 5 - Superintendent Of Police, Dhamtari District-Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 6 - The Station House O8cer, Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 7 - Sanni Dubey, The Station House O8cer, Police Station Arjuni, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Accused Persons) 8 - The Then Responsible Sta9 Of Police Station Arjuni, District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri C.R. Sahu and Shri Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21.11.2025 3 1. By this present review petition, the petitioner is seeking review/recall of order dated 06.10.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. (CR) No. 373/2025. 2. The review petitioners seek review of the order dated 06.10.2025 passed in W.P. (CR) No. 373/2025, which was allowed by the directing the respondent-State to pay a total compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) to petitioner No. 1, the widow of the deceased, for herself and her two minor children born out of the wedlock, and Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each to petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, being the parents of the deceased, within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order failing which the said shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the judgment till its realization. 3. The petitioners have preferred writ petition (CR) before this Court with following relief:- “(i) 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 upon complaint of the petitioners and to register FIR for the commission of o"ence under section 103, 3 (5) 4 of B.N.S. against the accused/ respondents no. 7 and 8 at the earliest, 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 CBI to investigate the matter on complaint of the petitioners and to register FIR for the commission of o"ence under section 103, 3 (5) of B.N.S. against the culprit responsible persons at the earliest, in the interest of justice. (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to facility and provide the government job to one family members of the deceased within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. (iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to authorities to make direct the respondent compensation on account of death of the deceased at the earliest, in the interest of justice. (v) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide information documents as sought by the petitioners under RTI at the earliest, in the interest of justice. 5 (vi) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by directing the respondent no. 1 to 3 to take necessary steps upon complaint of the petitioners according to the law laid down by Hon'ble Court in the case of Lalita Kumar Vs. State of U.P., in the interest of justice. (vii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay compensation on account of mentally harassment and deprived the petitioners and lose of the deceased's family members, in the interest of justice. (viii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that FIR No. 47/2025 was registered at Police Station Arjuni against one Durgendra Katholia for o9ences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC, and pursuant thereto he was arrested and produced before the learned CJM on 31.03.2025 in a normal and healthy condition. It was speciEcally alleged that during his police custody, he was subjected to third-degree treatment by the concerned police o8cials, as a result of which he 6 sustained multiple injuries and eventually died. Since no action was taken and an attempt was made to create a false narrative to shield the erring o8cials, the petitioners were compelled to approach this Court. The petitioners further submit that this Court, upon examining the materials on record, has held in paragraph 26 of the judgment that any death occurring in custody irrespective of its exact medical cause engages the constitutional obligation of the State under Article 21 to compensate the dependants for the loss of their breadwinner and for the violation of their right to a digniEed life. The petitioners further submit that in paragraph 27 of the judgment, this Court has recorded that Prayer Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the writ petition were not pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and were accordingly dismissed as such. The petitioners state that such recording does not reFect their instructions, and they never intended to abandon or not press the said reliefs. 5. Learned counsel further submit that in view of the grave custodial violence, the observations made in the report of the learned CJM, and the fact that they have lost the sole breadwinner of the family, it is necessary that liberty be 7 reserved in their favour to avail the remedies available under law with respect to Prayer Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. Without such liberty, the petitioners would be left remediless and the real perpetrators responsible for the custodial death may escape accountability. The petitioners therefore further submit that paragraph 27 of the order dated 06.10.2025 may kindly be suitably modiEed by reserving liberty in their favour to take recourse to remedies available under law concerning Prayer Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the judgment dated 06.10.2025 was passed after considering the entire material on record and the statements made by learned counsel during the hearing. It is submitted that paragraph 27 correctly records that Prayer Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 were not pressed, as that was the submission made on behalf of the petitioners at the time of Enal arguments. The State Counsel further submits that the relief of compensation has already been granted in accordance with law and the petitioners have shown no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review. It is therefore prayed that the review petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 8 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the review petition as also the order under review. 8. From bare perusal of the order, which is sought to be reviewed herein, at para 27 this Court noted thus : 27. The Court notes that learned counsel for the petitioners has chosen not to press prayer Nos. 1 and 2 of the petition, which relate to registration of FIR and criminal proceedings against the police authorities and further prayer Nos. 3, 5 and 6 of the petition, which relate to providing of government job, to seek documents under the RTI Act and to take necessary steps upon the complaint of the petitioners and con9nes his prayer with regard to prayer Nos.4 and 7 i.e. grant of compensation. Accordingly, prayer Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are dismissed as not pressed. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, this Court is of the view that no ground is made out for review of the judgment dated 06.10.2025 passed in W.P. (CR) No. 373/2025. The recording in paragraph 27 of the judgment that Prayer Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 were not pressed was made on the basis of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the 9 petitioners at the time of Enal hearing. The writ petition was thereafter decided on merits, and detailed Endings were recorded in paragraphs 26 to 28, culminating in the grant of compensation. 10. The present review petition, in substance, seeks reconsideration of issues already concluded and an alteration of the conscious stand taken during the writ proceedings, which is beyond the limited scope of review jurisdiction. No error apparent on the face of the record, inadvertent mistake, or omission has been demonstrated so as to warrant modiEcation or recall of paragraph 27. 11. The scope of review jurisdiction is narrow and conEned to errors apparent on the face of the record or if a relevant provision of law had been overlooked. In other words, it is only a patent error which is amenable to review and not an error which may have to be discovered by a process of reasoning and what may be called a virtual re-hearing of the matter. In the garb of a Review Petition, this Court cannot sit in judgment over its own order. 12. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re- appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as 10 that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 13. Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Malleeswari v. K. Suguna & Another, 2025 INSC 1080, SLP (C) No. 12787/2025 decided on 08.09.2025, reiterated the aforesaid view. 14. As an upshot, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib