1 2025:CGHC:55761-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 582 of 2025 Roshan Shrivas S/o Mohan Lal Shriwas Aged About 37 Years R/o Green Paradise Vishal Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur P.S. Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Law And Legislative Affiairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar (C.G.) 2. Station House Officer Police Station Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Superintendent of Police District- Raipur (C.G.) 4. Tabrez Khan S/o Mohammad Hafiz Khan Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 36 Mahamaya Road, Behind Nurani Masjid, Mominpara P.S. Ambikapur District - Ambikapur Sarguja (C.G.) 5. Khilendra Sahu S/o Tulsi Ram Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Marar Para, P.S. Balod District- Balod (C.G.) 6. Pankaj Mahant S/o Sukha Lal Mahant Aged About 35 Years R/o Secl Colony Near Kali Mandir Korba P.S. Kotwali District - Korba (C.G.) 7. Anand Thakur S/o Sanjay Kumar Thakur Aged About 36 Years R/o Secl Colony Near Kali Mandir Korba P.S. Kotwali District- Korba (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.17 17:42:07 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent authorities to register a FIR against the respondent No. 4 to 7 on the complaint of the petitioner. ii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioners. iii. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper; may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 4, along with other co-accused persons, cheated the petitioner by fraudulently taking control of his corporate bank account. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are officers working under the State authorities, while respondent No. 4 is the principal accused against whom the present 3 complaint has been lodged and who is also a resident of the State. It is thus submitted that all the respondents fall within the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the inaction of respondents No. 2 and 3 on the petitioner’s written complaints dated 17.11.2023 and 06.10.2025 made against respondents No. 4 to 7. The petitioner alleges that accused persons Pankaj Mahant, Anand Thakur, and Harish had repeatedly requested access to his Corporate Bank Account, which the petitioner consistently refused. However, on 01.11.2023, the said persons visited the petitioner’s residence and represented that certain funds were required to be credited to their names and could not be received in their personal accounts, as none of them possessed a corporate account. They further stated that if the funds were not received immediately, they would incur serious financial loss. Relying upon these representations and acting in good faith, the petitioner furnished the details of his Corporate Bank Account (Amrit Enterprises, Account No. 035305500589, ICICI Bank, Samta Colony Branch), along with ancillary access credentials such as OTPs, net-banking details, and the registered SIM card to accused persons Pankaj Mahant and Anand Thakur. Subsequently, on 10.11.2023, the petitioner was informed by the bank that unauthorized transactions had been carried out from his account between 04.11.2023 and 05.11.2023, due to which the account was frozen. When confronted, accused Pankaj Mahant informed the 4 petitioner that the account details had further been handed over to one Vicky @ Mohd. Tabrez Khan, who would reverse the transactions. In a conference call arranged by accused Pankaj Mahant, accused persons Anand Thakur and Vicky @ Mohd. Tabrez Khan assured the petitioner that the negative balance would be cleared and all unauthorized transactions would be reversed before Diwali. However, no refund or reversal has been made till date. Thereafter, when the petitioner attempted to contact the accused persons, accused Pankaj Mahant stated that Vicky @ Mohd. Tabrez Khan had said, “Do whatever you want to do, no one can harm us.” The petitioner claims that he has thus been cheated and has suffered severe mental agony. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter the petitioner lodged a written complaint before the Town Inspector, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, seeking registration of an FIR. A subsequent complaint was also submitted to respondent No. 3. However, despite these complaints, no action has been taken for registration of an FIR. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the grievance of the petitioner can be adequately addressed before the competent Court by filing an application under Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 175(3) or Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). It is further submitted that the controversy raised herein already stands settled by the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Misc. Bench No. 24492 of 2020 (Waseem Haider vs. 5 State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home & Others) decided on 14.12.2020 as well as by this Court in WPCR No. 333 of 2020 (Akhilesh Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) decided on 12.04.2023, wherein similar petitions were dismissed. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present petition also deserves dismissal on the same grounds. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before the appropriate forum. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan