1 2025:CGHC:4679 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 315 of 2025 1 - Devtanu Chakravorty S/o R.C. Chakraborty Aged About 65 Years Proprietor Tanu Construction Office Shop No. 2 Ishwari Plaza Second Floor Telibandaha Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) R/o House No. E/11 Street No. 2, Avanti Vihar Ravi Gram Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Vijay Kumar Sahu S/o Late Ishwari Prasad Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Sanjay Nagar Kumhari Tehsil Dhamdha District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Station House Officer Police Station Kumhari, District Durg (C.G.) 3 - K. K. T Apparao S/o Shri Simachalam Aged About 42 Years R/o Balaji Chowk, Near Naidu Kirana Store, Krishna Nagar Supela District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Smt. K. Parvati W/o K. K. T. Apparao Aged About 40 Years R/o Balaji Chowk, Near Naidu Kirana Store, Krishna Nagar Supela District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For State :Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 27/01/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this instant petition seeking direction to the respondent no. 2 to stop the proceedings against the petitioners and not to take any adverse action/step against them. 2 2. Brief facts of the case are such that the respondent/complainant has lodged a complaint/report before the concerned Police Station stating therein that on 01.02.2022 a complaint has been made by the victims/complainants before the Station House officer, Police Station Kumhari District Durg (CG) for registration of offence as the petitioner (proprietor of Tanu Construction) and agent Vijay Sahu has cheated them and committed forgery with them. After receiving complaint Station House Office, Police StatioN Kumhari has handed over the complaint for appropriate action and enquiry since allegations pertaining to forgery and there was abnormal delay therefore as per the direction of the Hon’ble court in the matter of lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 before registration of FIR enquiry was directed in light of para vi (b) of the above judgment of Lalita Kumar (supra) the same has been recorded in the complaint register of year 2022 on 01.02.2022 and the deponent immediately after receiving the complaint has directed the ASI Sonwani to conduct a preliminary enquiry and initiate necessary action. During preliminary enquiry oral/telephonic conversations has been done with the present petitioner no. 2 by the ASI Sonwani only 2-3 times and requested him to attend the Police Station for purpose of recording his statements in preliminary enquuiry initiated in complain lodged against them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the grievance of the petitioner would be redressed if this petition may be disposed of directing the concerned respondent/police authority to proceed on complaint made by the complainant in accordance with law. 4. Learned State Counsel did not opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3 5. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of directing the respondent no. 2/SHO to issue notice to the petitioner and thereafter proceed further in accordance with the rules and law. 6. Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction the instant petition stands disposed of. 7. No order as to costs. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza