1 2025:CGHC:51564-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3166 of 2025 Lavkumar S/o Sankirtan Chauhan Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Kanchanpur, Thana Sariya, Tah. Baramkela, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Present Distt. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police Sarangarh Bilaigarh. 2 - Station House Officer Police Station Sariya Distt Raigarh At Present Distt. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ratiram Chouhan S/o Shambhuram Chouhan Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Timarlaga, P.S. And Tah. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh, At Present Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) :Shri Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) :Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.10.16 16:38:53 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.10.2025 1. The present Cr.M.P. has been filed with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and thereby the Registration of Offence U/s 304 of Indian Penal Code and 135 of Electricity Act and thereafter taking cognizance as per the cognizance as per the order dated 19.12.2024 and subsequent order passed in special criminal case under the electricity act case no. 03/2024 by the court of Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge Electricity Act may kindly be set aside in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts leading to the present case are that on 04.09.2005 at about 11:15 a.m., the informant Nausagar, who was working as a trainee compounder at the clinic of Dr. Manoj Kumar at Sariya, lodged Merg intimation regarding the death of Smt. Pooja Chauhan, wife of Love Kumar Chauhan, aged 3 about 19 years and resident of Kanchanpur, who had died due to electric shock. The said information was registered at Police Station Sariya as Merg No. 14/2005. Upon inquiry, the Merg was closed on 08.01.2006 under the direction of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Sarangarh, and intimation regarding the same was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh. In compliance with the order of the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh vide letter No. 517/2018 dated 25.01.2018, an entry was made in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 25 dated 25.04.2018 to the effect that Merg Diary No. 14/2005 was closed as no cognizable offence was found to have been committed. According to learned counsel subsequently, this Court, in CRMP No. 842/2013, vide order dated 28.06.2019, directed for re-investigation of the matter and submission of charge-sheet, if any cognizable offence was found to have been committed. In compliance with the said direction and in pursuance of the order dated 15.07.2021 passed in Contempt Case No. 343/2021 and subsequent communication dated 14.12.2023 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Sarangarh (Letter No. Reader/1/637/2023), the police of Police Station Sariya, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, re-inquired and re-investigated the 4 matter. During such re-investigation, the statements of witnesses namely; Ratiram Chauhan, Amritlal Chauhan, Khageshwar Prasad, Sunil Chauhan, Dr. Jay Tripathi, Dr. J. Toppo, Shyamlal Pradhan, Nausagar Dadsena, Dr. Manoj Gupta, and Sushila Bai Chauhan were recorded, and necessary information was also obtained from the Electricity and Health Departments. 3. Upon completion of the re-investigation, the police found that an offence under Section 304 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Electricity Act was made out. Accordingly, Crime No. 108/2024 was registered at Police Station Sariya, and the Final Report/Charge-sheet was submitted on 07.12.2024 before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Electricity Act), Sarangarh, where it was registered as Special Criminal Case No. 3/2024. The learned Court took cognizance of the offence on 19.12.2024 and thereafter fixed the case for hearing on charge on various dates including 20.12.2024, 23.12.2024, 27.12.2024, 02.01.2025, 14.01.2025, 16.01.2025, 24.01.2025, and 10.02.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the re- investigation conducted by the police in connection with Merg 5 No. 14/2005 is not permissible in the eye of law, as the said Merg had already been closed and the entire record demolished as per the order of the competent authority. It is contended that once the Merg proceeding was concluded and no cognizable offence was found, the subsequent direction for re-investigation issued by this Court in CRMP No. 842/2013 dated 28.06.2019 was beyond the permissible legal scope. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 6 SCC 332, wherein it has been categorically held that there exists a clear distinction between further investigation and re-investigation, and that re- investigation is forbidden in law, as neither the investigating agency nor any superior court ordinarily has the power to direct such re-investigation. It is further submitted that in compliance with the said order, the police authorities, under pressure arising from contempt proceedings in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 343/2021, have illegally conducted re-investigation of the already closed Merg and have registered an offence under Section 304 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Electricity 6 Act, vide Crime No. 108/2024, which is contrary to the settled legal principles and liable to be set aside. 5. Learned State counsel opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that though in the order dated 28.06.2019 passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. no. 842/2013, there was a direction for reinvestigation, however, if the said order would consider in its entirety, it is evident that there was direction for further investigation. He would submit that after the further investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the competent Court. According to learned counsel the order dated 28.06.2019 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 842/2013 has not been assailed in any higher forum questioning the correctness of the same as such the said order attained its finality. Thus, the petitioner cannot be allowed to question the same by filing the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, it appears that though in the order dated 28.06.2019 passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. no. 842/2013, there was a direction for reinvestigation, however, if the said order would consider in its entirety, it is evident that there was direction for further 7 investigation. It is also apparent that after the further investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the competent Court. Further the order dated 28.06.2019 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 842/2013 has not been assailed in any higher forum questioning the correctness of the same as such the said order attained its finality, therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to question the same by filing the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS. In the present case, the subsequent inquiry was conducted in compliance with the High Court’s order, during which new material and witness statements came on record disclosing offences under Sections 304 IPC and 135 of the Electricity Act. Therefore, the registration of Crime No. 108/2024 and filing of charge sheet cannot be termed illegal or without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the contention of the petitioner that the re-investigation is impermissible in law is found to be sans substratum. 8. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib