1 2025:CGHC:6492-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 67 of 2025 1 - Dolly Dewangan W/o Lukesh Kumar Dewangan Aged About 31 Years Through Teerath Ram Dewangan, R/o Shaktiswarupa Indira Nagar Charoda, Bhilai- 03 Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Teerath Ram Dewangan S/o Late Heerklal Dewangan Aged About 65 Years R/o Shaktiswarupa Indira Nagar Charoda, Bhilai- 03 Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Home Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Station House Officer Police Station Old Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Lukesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Bahur Singh Dewangan, R/o Bapunagar Street N.P.A. Zone 02 Sector 11 Khurseepar Bhilai Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rajendra Ramteke S/o S. P. Ramteke, R/o Shaktiswarupa Indira Nagar Charoda, Bhilai- 03 Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Dy. Advocate General. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Vivekanand Samaddar, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Mukesh Rathiya, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05/02/2025 1. Heard Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State, Mr. Vivekanand Samaddar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, Mr. Mukesh Rathiya, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against inaction of the police authorities who are not taking any action against the respondent No.4 who installed the CCTV camera in front of the house of the petitioners by which their privacy is affecting. The petitioners have claimed the following relief in her writ petition: 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 and 2 for initiating proceedings for removal of CCTV cameras installed in the house of respondent no.4 if it is not for his personal use, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.4 to remove the above CCTV cameras, in the interest of justice. 10.3. That, this honourable court may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondent no.3 from using illegally obtained evidence in any court of law, in the interest of justice. 3 10.4. That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No. 4 is the friend of respondent No.3 who is the husband of the petitioner No.1, matrimonial dispute is pending before the learned family Court, Durg, in which the respondent No.3 has filed a CCTV footage of the house of the petitioner No.1 in form of a pen drive which has been obtained from the respondent No.4 who is the friend of respondent No. 3 and thereby the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 are disturbing the privacy of the petitioner No.1. Despite making complaint to the police authorities they have not taken any action against the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and thus a direction may be issued to the authorities concerned for removal of the said CCTV camera from the house of the respondent no.4. 4. Vide order dated 03.02.2025 the notices were issued to the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 for their appearance. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 would submit that he installed the CCTV camera in front of his house for his safety and security purpose and he is not intended to disturb the privacy of any other persons or his neighbours. Since his house situated on the road it is quite obvious that the activities of nearby places would have been captured in that CCTV camera and recorded in its DVR. The respondent No.3 is his friend and on his request he gave the CCTV footage but he was not in knowledge that he may use the said CCTV footage in the court proceedings which is pending between him and the petitioner No.1. By the said CCTV footage there is no disturbance in privacy of the petitioner No.1 or any other person but it was routine CCTV footage. He would also submit that respondent No.4 will take care in future that the petitioner No.1 privacy may be hurt by any act of him. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegation leveled by the petitioner in the writ petition as also the submissions made by learned 4 counsel for the respondent no.4, We deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by giving certain directions to Superintendent of Police, Durg. Hence, the Superintendent of Police, Durg is directed to ensure that the privacy of the petitioner No.1 shall not be affected by the CCTV camera which has been installed by the respondent No.4 in front of his house, who happens to be the friend of the respondent No.3 who is husband of the petitioner No.1. 6. With the aforementioned observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.02.14 14:48:29 +0530