1 CGHC010450212025 2026:CGHC:37070-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 554 of 2025 Nishant Fuljhele S/o Mr. Keshav Rao Phuljhele Aged About 30 Years R/o Mahra Basti, R. D. A. Colony, Tikrapara, Raipur, Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distrtict Raipur 2 - Director General Of Police Of Chhattisgarh Police Head Quarters, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Bilaspur Range, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub Divisional Officer Police (S.D.O.P.) Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 6 - Deputy Superintendent Of Police Lormi, District Mungeli 7 - The Station House Officer Police Station Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 8 - Mr. D. R. Anchala (Retired Superintendent Of Police Mungeli) R/o Sai Nagar, Chikhali, Smriti Nagar, P.S. Smriti Nagar, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 9 - S.R. Dhritlehre (Earlier Posted As S.D.O.P. Mungeli) Currently Posted As Deputy Superintended Of Police Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 10 - Mr. Vishwajeet Singh Presently Posted At Reserved Centre (Rakshit Kendra), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.08.22 10:39:38 +0530 2 11 - Shailendra Lehre S/o Hiraram Lahre Aged About 35 Years R/o Sainagar, Uslapur, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 12 - Smt. Priyanka Lahre W/o Shailendra Lehre Aged About 35 Years R/o Sainagar, Uslapur, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 13 - Abhishek Rathore S/o Mahendra Rathore Aged About 34 Years R/o Gandhi Nagar Ward, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Indore, District : Indore, Madhya Pradesh 14 - Anuj Gupta S/o Ramniwas Gupta Aged About 38 Years R/o Mayapur, Chandani Chowk, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Raza Ali, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 7/State For Respondents No.11 to 13 : : Mr.Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General Mr.Aman Saxena, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19.08.2026 1. Heard Mr.Raza Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 7/State and Mr.Aman Saxena, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.11 to 13. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- 3 “A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue commanding and directing the respondent authorities to produce before this Hon'ble Court all the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue quashing the impugned inquiry report and letters dated 01.09.2021, 20.09.2021, 27.09.2021, 18.09.2021, 05.03.2022 and memo of charges and letter dated 15.09.2025 along with the report of respondent no. 4 (Annexure P-1 to P-7 Colly) and as a consequences entire proceedings pursuant to annexure P-1 to P-7, being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioner and also in violation of principle of natural justice. C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue directing the respondent no. 3 and 4 to provide the monetary compensation to the petitioner for their illegal and arbitrary act. D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. E. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Mungeli, alleging that Priyanka Lehre, Atul Rathore, Abhshek Rathore and Anuj Gupta (respondent Nos. 11 to 14) had fraudulently taken ₹1,20,000 from him on the false promise of providing a government job and had issued a forged appointment letter. On the petitioner’s complaint, a preliminary inquiry was conducted and, finding commission of 4 offences, FIR bearing Crime No. 243/2021 was registered. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet before the JMFC, Mungeli on 04.09.2021. The Magistrate took cognizance and framed charges against the accused/respondent Nos. 11 to 14. Subsequently, the accused, through their counsel, approached the Human Rights Commission alleging that the criminal cases against them were false and were lodged by the petitioner and others at the instance of one Piyush Tiwari. The complaint was forwarded to the police authorities for inquiry. 4. Pursuant thereto, the police authorities conducted further/parallel inquiries, including inquiries by the SP, SDOP and DSP, concerning several cases, including Crime No. 243/2021. These inquiries were conducted without notice to or participation of the petitioner, although he was the complainant in the said FIR. The inquiry reports allegedly cast suspicion upon Piyush Tiwari, certain police officials and the circumstances surrounding the registration of the criminal cases. One of the reports acknowledged that charge-sheets had already been filed, cognizance had been taken and charges had been framed, and observed that final remarks regarding the allegations should await the decision of the competent court. Despite the pending criminal proceedings, departmental proceedings were also initiated against certain police officials, including the police officer who had dealt with the petitioner’s complaint/FIR, on the basis of the inquiry reports. 5 5. It is the case of the petitioner that these parallel inquiries and departmental proceedings were conducted behind his back, without recording his statement, without affording him an opportunity of hearing and without obtaining permission from the competent criminal court, despite the matter already being sub judice. The accused had also approached the High Court in WPCR No. 793/2022 and subsequently in CRMP No. 1550/2024 challenging the criminal proceedings/framing of charges, in which the High Court stayed the trial proceedings. The petitioner submits that the police authorities, instead of allowing the criminal court to adjudicate the allegations on the basis of the charge- sheet and evidence, have undertaken parallel proceedings which allegedly seek to cast doubt upon the FIR and investigation and thereby benefit the accused. 6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the concerned police officers acted arbitrarily and mala fide, in collusion with the accused, and that the impugned inquiries and departmental proceedings violate his fundamental and constitutional rights as well as the principles of natural justice. The petitioner states that he became aware of these parallel proceedings only in March 2025 and, after obtaining the relevant communications and inquiry reports, has approached the High Court seeking quashing of the impugned inquiry reports and consequential proceedings. Hence, this petition. 6 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned inquiry reports, communications, memo of charges and departmental proceedings are arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. It is contended that, after a lawful investigation into the petitioner’s complaint, FIR No. 243/2021 was registered, a charge-sheet was filed, cognizance was taken and charges were framed by the competent criminal court. Despite the matter being sub judice, the police authorities initiated parallel inquiries without obtaining permission of the competent court and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who is the complainant. It is further submitted that the inquiry proceedings dated 18.09.2021, 20.09.2021, 27.09.2021 and 05.03.2022 were conducted behind the petitioner’s back and without recording his statement. The report dated 05.03.2022 itself recognized that the criminal cases were pending before the competent court and that no adverse conclusion ought to be drawn until adjudication; nevertheless, the respondents proceeded further and initiated departmental proceedings against police officials. 8. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has no concern with the allegations involving Piyush Tiwari and is only pursuing his own case arising out of FIR No. 243/2021. The finding that the petitioner’s complaint was lodged at the instance of Piyush Tiwari was allegedly reached without examining the petitioner and substantially on the basis of the accused persons’ version, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is also argued that the 7 departmental proceedings are selective and mala fide, as action has been initiated against one police officer while other officers who subsequently investigated the petitioner’s complaint and found the allegations substantiated were not proceeded against. This, according to the petitioner, demonstrates that the proceedings are intended to create a finding favourable to the accused rather than to fairly examine any alleged police misconduct. Counsel further submits that any adverse finding against the police investigation would directly prejudice the petitioner’s rights and interests in the pending criminal case, giving him sufficient locus to challenge the impugned proceedings. The petitioner also seeks production of all undisclosed communications, reports and documents having any adverse bearing upon his case. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned proceedings violate the petitioner’s fundamental, constitutional and legal rights and the principles of natural justice, particularly when the criminal proceedings are already pending before the competent courts. The subsequent developments, including the judgment referred to by the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No. 1294/2024, are also relied upon to demonstrate that the allegations concerning Piyush Tiwari cannot, by themselves, justify treating the petitioner’s independent complaint as false. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for quashing of the impugned inquiry reports, communications, memo of charges and consequential departmental proceedings. 8 9. Per contra, Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents No. 1 to 7/State opposes the petition and submits that the writ petition is misconceived, vague and devoid of merit. The petitioner has failed to establish violation of any fundamental or legal right warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is submitted that, pursuant to complaints received from Priyanka Lahare and others, a Special Investigation Team was constituted by the competent police authorities, which conducted a detailed inquiry into the various cases. The SIT found several offences to be fabricated and also noticed negligence and involvement of certain police officials, pursuant to which appropriate departmental proceedings were initiated. With regard to Crime No. 243/2021, learned Additional Advocate General submits that although the charge-sheet has been filed and the criminal case is pending before the Trial Court, the Investigating Officer, Inspector Vishwajeet Singh, was found negligent in conducting the investigation and, therefore, disciplinary proceedings were lawfully initiated against him. Such departmental proceedings concern the conduct of the police officer and do not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the pending criminal trial. 10.It is further submitted that the allegation that the petitioner was not informed of the inquiry is incorrect, as the petitioner was communicated regarding the complaints and was given an opportunity to respond, which he declined. Learned Additional 9 Advocate General submits that the impugned inquiries and consequential departmental proceedings were conducted by competent authorities on the basis of material available on record and do not suffer from arbitrariness, mala fides, jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice. Accordingly, learned AAG submits that the petitioner has failed to make out any ground for interference under Article 226 and, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 11.Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents No. 1 to 7/State, and the material available on record, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned inquiry reports, communications or consequential departmental proceedings. 12.The record shows that Crime No. 243/2021 was registered on the complaint of the petitioner and a charge-sheet was subsequently filed before the competent Magistrate. However, the subsequent inquiry conducted by the police authorities was directed towards examining the conduct and alleged negligence of the police officials in registering and investigating the various criminal cases. Such administrative/departmental inquiry cannot, by itself, be construed as an adjudication upon the guilt or innocence of the accused persons in the pending criminal trial. 10 13.The respondents have also placed on record that, pursuant to complaints received from Priyanka Lahare and others, a Special Investigation Team was constituted, which conducted an inquiry into the entire matter and found irregularities in the investigation, resulting in initiation of departmental proceedings against the concerned police officials. The petitioner has failed to establish that the competent authorities acted without jurisdiction or with such arbitrariness or mala fides as would warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 14.The contention that the inquiry proceedings necessarily required prior permission of the criminal Court is also not acceptable in the facts of the present case, particularly when the departmental proceedings relate to the conduct of police officials and are distinct from the adjudication of the criminal case pending before the Trial Court. 15.The petitioner has further failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice to his legally enforceable rights arising from the impugned proceedings. The criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 243/2021 remain pending before the competent Court, where the petitioner shall have the opportunity to establish his case in accordance with law. 16.Accordingly, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to establish any illegality, jurisdictional error, arbitrariness, mala fide 11 action or violation of the principles of natural justice warranting interference with the impugned proceedings. 17.Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu