1 2025:CGHC:59912-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 626 of 2025 Smt. Santoshi Kujur W/o Late Silberius Kujur Aged About 40 Years R/o Police Line, Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director General Of Police, Chhattisgarh Head Quarter- Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Superintendent Of Police, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Station House Officer, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Jitendra Kishor Mehta, Advocate alongwith Mr. Anand Kumar Kujur, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.12.11 18:50:03 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10/12/2025 1. The instant CRMP has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief:- “(i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an order or appropriate direction to the respondent authorities to investigate the alleged killing of the petitioner's son Rahul Kujur either by a special investigation team or by an independent investigation agency under the supervision of this Hon'ble Court. (ii) That any other relief/order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s son, Rahul Kujur, aged about 21 years and serving as a Police Constable, died under suspicious circumstances on 01.05.2024, for which Merg No. 41/2024 was registered at Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh. The petitioner alleges that the incident was homicidal in nature, but the respondent-police authorities have conducted an incomplete, biased and unfair investigation, and have instead attempted to portray the incident as an accidental death. Subsequently, a false and baseless FIR bearing Crime No. 0326/2024, dated 29.06.2024 was registered at the same police station against the deceased himself, for offences 3 under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC, thereby converting a suspicious death into a case of rash and negligent driving. According to the petitioner, despite submitting detailed complaints, the police have failed to conduct a proper and fair inquiry. Aggrieved by such faulty, superficial and prejudiced investigation, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions for a fresh, fair and impartial investigation, preferably by an independent agency or a Special Investigation Team, under the supervision of this Court, so as to unearth the true circumstances surrounding the death of her son. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire investigation conducted by the respondent-police authorities is incomplete, biased and contrary to law, as the alleged incident has been deliberately projected as an accidental death by registering a false FIR bearing Crime No. 326/2024 against the deceased himself under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. He submits that the absence of blood stains, lack of damage to the motorcycle, and no signs of a major accident at the spot raise grave suspicion of a homicidal death, which the police have failed to examine. It is further argued that despite specific allegations and detailed complaints naming certain individuals suspected of conspiring to eliminate the deceased, the respondent-authorities have ignored the material on record and carried out a premeditated and one-sided enquiry, resulting in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights to equality and fair treatment 4 guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, a fair, impartial and independent investigation is sought in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submit that the investigation was conducted strictly in accordance with law. It is pointed out that since Atish Raj Kerketta had also sustained injuries in the same incident, Crime No. 326/2024 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. After due investigation, a closure report bearing No. 81/2024 has been prepared and to be submitted before the competent Court, wherein it has been concluded that the death occurred due to the negligent driving of the deceased-driver Rahul Kujur himself. As the accused driver died in the incident, the case has been accordingly closed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record, this Court finds that the pleadings essentially reflect the petitioner’s grievance regarding the manner and fairness of the investigation conducted by the respondent-police authorities. On the other hand, by placing a copy of letter dated 9.12.2025 issued by the SHO, PS Chakradhra Nagar, Dist. Raigarh, which is taken on record, learned counsel for the State submits that a detailed investigation has already been completed 5 and a closure report has been prepared attributing the cause of death to the negligent driving of the deceased himself. Since the question as to whether the investigation is proper, defective, biased or incomplete is a matter that falls within the domain of the competent Magistrate, this Court finds that the petitioner’s objections to the investigation are matters that should properly be considered by the Magistrate on the filing of the closure report, and therefore this Court cannot go into these factual aspects at this stage. 7. In view of the above, the Investigating Officer is directed to file the appropriate report, as mentioned in the letter dated 9.12.2025, before the competent Court within a period of two weeks. Upon such filing, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said report, she shall be at liberty to take recourse to law, in accordance with law, as may be available to her. This Court finds no illegality, irregularity or infirmity warranting interference in the present writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/ (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar