1 2025:CGHC:9308-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 110 of 2025 1 - Kaushlalya Bai D/o Shri Kaliram Satnami, W/o Shri Amrit Lal Banjare Aged About 58 Years R/o Village- Savitripur, Tehsil- Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs (Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Additional Superintendent Of Police Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Station House Officer, Police Station Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Station House Officer, Police Station Patewa, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Ram Awatar Agrawal, S/o Shri Suwalal Agrawal Aged About 57 Years R/o Lakhe Nagar Dhaal, Mahadev Ghat Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) Presently R/o Samta Colony, Infront Of Union Bank, Raipur Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Rashmi Agrawal W/o Shri Ram Awatar Agrawal R/o Lakhe Nagar Dhaal, Mahadev Ghat Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G) Presently R/o Samta Colony, Infront Of Union Bank, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 7 - Superintendent Of Police Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 8 - Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Child Against Crime Investigation Branch, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24/02/2025 1. Heard Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ (s), order (s), direction (s), by quashing the impugned notice dated 01.02.2025 (Annexure P- 1) and further proceeding, in respect to the petitioner and also a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued restraining the respondent authorities, particularly respondent no. 8 from further proceedings. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondents authorities for its kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted." 3 3. The brief facts of the case are that a notice has been issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.8 on 01.02.2025 calling her for recording of her statement in the proceeding initiated against the then Station House Officer, Police Station Patewa, it reflects from the impugned notice that a complaint was made by the complainant Ramavtar Agrawal and Rashmi Agrawal resident of Lakhe Nagar, Raipur on 06.01.2022 with respect to the cheating by her which was inquired by the then Station House Officer, Police Station Patewa and after inquiry the report of non-cognizable offence under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. was given with respect to the negligence of the then Station House Officer, Police Station Patewa, an inquiry was proposed in which her statement is required to be recorded for which she was being called by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 04.02.2025 along with the necessary documents to the Office of Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is apprehending that the police authority made take coercive steps against her against the private respondents are influential person. On the complaint made by the private respondent, an intimation of non-cognizable offence under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. is issued and despite that she was being repeatedly called by the police authorities for recording of her statement, therefore, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes and have submitted that the petitioner is being called for recording of her statement in a preliminary inquiry proceeding initiated against the then Station House Officer, Police Station Patewa for which the Deputy Superintendent of Police had issued a notice to her. The petitioner is required to cooperate with the inquiry, therefore, the writ petition filed by her is having no merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 4 7. From perusal of the impugned notice dated 01.02.2025 which has been issued to the petitioners for the purpose of interrogation/recording of her statement in preliminary inquiry proceeding initiated against the then Station House Officer would clearly reveals that some inquiry is being initiated against the then Station House Officer of Police Station Patewa and in that inquiry the petitioner had been asked to appear and give her statement. There is nothing in the notice dated 01.02.2025 which requires interference by way of the present petition, therefore, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner and to interfere in the matter and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.03.03 18:34:46 +0530