1 2025:CGHC:5561-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 53 of 2025 Ajay Mangeshkar S/o Amar Das Mangeshkar Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Domarpur, Police Station Jarhagaon, Distt. - Mungeli (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Koni, Distt. - Bilaspur (C.G.). 3 - Rahul Kashyap S/o Ramkumar Kashyap, Aged About 31 Years R/o In Front of Raja Hotel, Telephone Exchange Road, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 and 2/State : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the 2 petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and further be please to issue a appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and direct the concern Court learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.) to decide case Unregistered and pending on application filed by the petitioner u/s 175(3) BNS by the petitioner at the earliest. 10.2 Any other relief, which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 3. Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a petty contractor. The petitioner lodged a report on 08.07.2024 at Police Station, Koni alleging that last year, he had entered into an oral contract with the respondent No. 3 and agreed for construction of his house at the rate of Rs. 150/- per square feet under certain terms and conditions. On 08.02.2024, the petitioner started the construction of work and for that, Rs. 10,000/- was given by the respondent No. 3 through his friend, Raju Dhritlahare. He got the construction of the house done through his labourers and worked only till 12.05.2024 as some dispute arose between them with regard to the measurement of the construction done by him. The respondent No. 3 was required to pay a sum of Rs. 1,24,450/- to the petitioner but he was only paid total sum of Rs. 46,280/-. The petitioner had also performed some additional work on the instruction of the respondent No. 3 for which he was required to pay Rs. 76,850/- but was only paid Rs. 23,800/-. Despite repeated requests, neither the payment was made nor his equipments/tools were returned to him. Instead, a false complaint was made against the petitioner and claimed that the petitioner owes a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the respondent No. 3. The petitioner has approached the Superintendent of Police, on 18.07.2024 and requested for a direction to 3 the respondent No. 2 to take action against the respondent No. 3 but when nothing was done, the petitioner filed an application under Section 175(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Clas, Bilaspur for a direction to the concerned Police Station to lodge the FIR against the respondent No. 3 but despite passing of about 4 months, no order has been passed in favour of the petitioner. 4. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 29.01.2025, the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur was directed to call for an explanation from the Station House OfÏcer, Koni, as to why he has not submitted the police report before the Court of Magistrate in compliance of the order passed by the Magistrate on 19.09.2024. 5. A compliance report has been filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 before this Court on 29.01.2025 stating therein that an explanation was called for by the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range to the Station House OfÏcer concerned on 29.01.2025 and in response, the Station House OfÏcer concerned has submitted his reply stating the reasons for the delay but has also filed the police report before the concerned Court i.e. Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaspur on 29.01.2025 wherein it has been stated that after considering all the aspects of the matter and the materials available, no cognizable offence was made out. It has further been stated in the afÏdavit that since the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur, did not found the reply of the Station House OfÏcer concerned satisfactory, he has been punished with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and he has been given a warning that such mistake should not be repeated in future. 6. In view of the submissions made by the State/respondents No. 1 and 2 as above, nothing survives for adjudication in the matter as the police has 4 already filed its report stating that no cognizable offence is made out against the respondent No. 3 and now it is for the concerned Court to proceed further with the case pending before it. The erring ofÏcial has also been punished appropriately by the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur and as such, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.01.31 11:34:08 +0530