1 2025:CGHC:50553-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 530 of 2025 Sanjay Agrawal S/o Mahangi Lal Agrawal Aged About 54 Years R/o Main Road, Baikunthpur (Schoolpara), Baikunthpur, Police Station Baikunthpur, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Director General of Police Police Head Quarter, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Inspector General of Police Sarguja Range, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh 4. Superintendent of Police Baikunthpur, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh 5. Station House Officer Police Station - Baikunthpur, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.10.10 19:35:01 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Non-Cognizable Report dated 05.03.2025 given by the respondent No. 5 bearing No. 0112/2025 (Annexure P/1) given on the complaint of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 5 to register the First Information Report against the accused persons on the report of the petitioner dated 06.02.2025. 10.3 Any other relief(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 09.02.2021, vide letter bearing No. 80/vehu@vfrdze.k/2021, a written report was 3 submitted by the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Gage Slip-Way Sub- Division, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, against the petitioner and his wife, alleging that they had closed a canal, constructed a CC road thereon, and sold the land, thereby committing cheating and criminal conspiracy. On the basis of the said written report, an FIR was registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the petitioner and his wife. He further submits that after registration of the FIR, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking a copy of the said report. In response, the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer supplied two different copies of the report dated 09.02.2021, both bearing the same number (No. 80/vehu@vfrdze.k/2021), on 20.09.2021 and 08.10.2021. On perusal, one report mentioned the petitioner’s name while the other did not. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that upon perusal of the charge-sheet filed by respondent No. 5, both versions of the report dated 09.02.2021 were found to have been annexed. It is also alleged that a Joint Inspection Report dated 27.01.2021, prepared by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Baikunthpur, was forged and fabricated. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a written complaint on 06.02.2025 before respondent No. 5 seeking registration of FIR against the then officers of the Water Resources Department for preparing and using forged and fabricated documents to falsely implicate him and his wife. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent 4 No. 5, instead of registering an FIR, issued a Non-Cognizable Report dated 05.03.2025, despite observing that certain documents appeared forged, on the ground that a charge-sheet had already been filed against the petitioner. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Pandey & Another vs. Seesh Ram Saini & Others, SLP(C) No. 7900 of 2019, wherein reliance was placed on Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma vs. State of Gujarat, (2025) 4 SCC 818, to contend that where the allegations disclose abuse of official position and corrupt practices by public servants, such offences are cognizable and the police is bound to register an FIR under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. without preliminary inquiry. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and that refusal to register a cognizable offence cannot be justified on the ground of alternative remedy. It is, therefore, contended that the Non-Cognizable Report dated 05.03.2025 is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. Hence, this petition. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission mae by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the FIR against the petitioner on the basis of a proper written report of the competent authority, followed by investigation and submission of charge-sheet before the competent Court. The matter is now pending trial, and therefore, the petitioner’s allegations relating to alleged fabrication of documents are matters of evidence to be examined by the 5 trial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s subsequent complaint alleging fabrication and forgery of official records has already been examined by the police, and after due consideration, a Non- Cognizable Report was issued. The petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for appropriate directions if aggrieved by non- registration of FIR. The State counsel further submits that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner does not apply to the facts of the present case because, unlike in that case, the allegations here do not relate to abuse of public office or corruption in discharge of official duties, but rather to alleged falsification of records connected with a case already investigated and charge-sheeted. Therefore, the ratio of Vinod Kumar Pandey (supra) cannot be invoked to compel a second investigation into the same subject matter. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is evident that the grievance of the petitioner relates to alleged fabrication of documents forming part of the investigation that resulted in filing of charge-sheet against him and his wife. The petitioner’s request is for registration of a separate FIR against certain officers of the Water Resources Department in that regard. 8. The material on record shows that the petitioner’s complaint was duly examined by the police, and a Non-Cognizable Report dated 05.03.2025 was issued. The appropriate remedy available to the petitioner, in such a situation, is to approach the learned Magistrate 6 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for necessary directions. As regards the reliance placed on Vinod Kumar Pandey (supra), this Court finds that the said judgment dealt with a situation involving allegations of corruption, misuse of official position, and abuse of power by public servants while in office. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such allegations constitute cognizable offences and that no preliminary inquiry is required prior to registration of FIR. However, the present case stands on a different footing — here, the alleged act of forgery pertains to documents forming part of an investigation that has already culminated in a charge-sheet. The petitioner’s grievance concerns the correctness and genuineness of evidence collected during investigation, which is a matter falling squarely within the domain of the trial Court. Hence, the ratio laid down in Vinod Kumar Pandey (supra) is distinguishable on facts and does not apply to the present case, where the alleged irregularities relate to evidentiary documents already filed before the competent Court. 9. It is well settled that this Court would not ordinarily exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. when a clear and efficacious statutory remedy is available, unless exceptional circumstances exist. No such circumstance has been demonstrated herein. 10. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies available under law, including filing an 7 application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Magistrate for registration of FIR or for any other appropriate relief as permissible in law. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan