1 2025:CGHC:56237-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 587 of 2025 Aadil Raj S/o Iqubal Raj Aged About 28 Years R/o House No. 86, Eidgah Mohalla West, Samsuddin House, Farid Nagar, Junwani, Supela Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Home Department (Police) Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Superintended Of Police District Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Officer-In-Charge Police Station Supela, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 . Registration Authority Durg R T O, Chhattisgarh 5. Traffic Police Chhattisgarh Office At Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. S. K. Finance Company Through Officer-In-Charge G-1 And G-2, New Market Khasa, Kothi Circle Jaipur, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) P I N- 302001 7. Officer-In-Charge S. / K. Finance Company Branch Office Shriram Business Park, Second Floor, Plot No. 11 Block B, Vishvakarma Market Radhika Nagar Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh 8. Ashif Qureshi S/o Anwar Qureshi Aged About 44 Years R/o Masjit Colony, Ward No. 2, Indian Broiler Farm, Kantabanji, Balangir Odhisha P I N- 767039 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/ State: Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.20 10:13:54 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19/11/2025 1. Heard Mr. Uttam Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. for the State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for following prayer:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the office of finance company, P.S. Supela, RTO office, Traffic Police Raipur and S.P. Durg by issuing a writ of certiorari for kind perusal. 10.2 The P.S. Supela be directed to seize the vehicle from the third party, who has purchased the vehicle, after collecting his particulars from finance company. 10.3 That, the respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to take disciplinary action against erring police officials posted at P.S. Supela at the relevant time for gross misconduct on their part for dereliction in duty. 10.4 That RTO office Durg may kindly be directed to produce the status report of vehicle Innova No. CG- 07-CM 6696 in connection with its existing registration. 10.5 The finance company may kindly be directed to 3 restore the possession of the vehicle and to hand over it to P.S. Supela as the said vehicle is the subject matter in crime number 0048/2025 registered by P.S. Supela U/s 316(2) of BNS 2023 to enable the police station to deal with the vehicle in terms of law. As well as the finance company further be restrained to ask for the alleged the balance amount 1,19,565/- from the petitioner. 10.6 The traffic police Raipur be ordered to give clarification as to why challan fine was issued in the name of the petitioner, though vehicle was not being plied by him. 10.7 The S.P. Durg may kindly be directed to issue show cause notice to P.S. Supela as to why cognizance was not taken after more than 5 months from the date of written report dt. 02.08.2024 and illegally extended protection to Asif/R-7 and finance company. 10.8 Cost of the petition be awarded to the petitioner against the respondents. 10.9 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 3. From the material placed on record, it appears that the petitioner has already lodged an FIR bearing Cr.No.48/2025 for offence under Section 316(2) of BNS at PS Supela, Dist. Durg, against respondent No. 8 with regard to the vehicle in question, alleging that respondent No. 8 had taken the petitioner’s car for a visit to 4 Ajmer and thereafter absconded, failing to return the vehicle despite repeated requests. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the allegation regarding respondent No. 8 absconding with the petitioner’s vehicle is already the subject matter of a criminal investigation pursuant to the FIR lodged by the petitioner. It is argued that the matter is being duly inquired into by the competent authority, and appropriate action will be taken strictly in accordance with law. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. Having considered the submissions made and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no ground to entertain the present writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner regarding the alleged misuse and non-return of the vehicle by respondent No. 8 is already the subject matter of an FIR, and the competent police authority is stated to be conducting due investigation in accordance with law. The prayers sought by the petitioner, including directions for seizure of the vehicle, disciplinary action against police officials, production of records by various authorities, and intervention in matters connected with an ongoing criminal investigation, cannot be granted in writ jurisdiction, particularly when the investigation is still in progress and no material has been brought on record to show deliberate inaction or mala fide on the part of the authorities. 7. At this stage, the reliefs sought are not amenable to adjudication 5 under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed; however, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage, in accordance with law, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti