1 CGHC010319932026 2026:CGHC:37529-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 493 of 2026 1 - Ujjwal Diwan S/o Gaurishankar Diwan, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Behind Mukbadhir School Kadambari Nagar, Durg, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Home Secretary, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Home Department Through its Secretary, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director General of Police Chhattisgarh (DGP), Police Headquarter, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Inspector General of Police, Durg Range, Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Superintendent of Police Durg Through Vijay Agrawal, Distt. Durg, Durg Chhattisgarh. 6 - Station House Officer Police Station Supela Vijay Yadav, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Investigating Officer Assistant Sub Inspector Rajesh Tiwari, Police Station Supela, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.08.24 16:55:19 +0530 2 8 - District Magistrate Durg, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 9 - Sub Divisional Magistrate (Revenue), Bhilai Nagar, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Janu Khare, Advocate. For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Janu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State-respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief(s): “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Istagasha no 75/2026 dated – 19.04.2026 criminal proceeding no 347/2026, prepared by the Police station, Supela, Durg against the petitioner. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction to take disciplinary action against the respondent. 3 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1/State, taking note of suffering and humiliation caused to the petitioner by granting a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) towards compensation to petitioner to be paid by the 'State of Chhattisgarh. 10.4 This High Court may kindly please to direct the respondent to preserve the CCTV footage thana Supela, Durg and central jail Durg, Durg of date 19.04.2026. 10.5 To kindly grant any other suitable order or direction as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts as per the petitioner, in brief, when the petitioner was under preparation to raise his grievance against the Superintendent of Police, Durg before the higher authority, on 19.04.2026, he was unalwfully intercepted, detained, and falsely booked under Istagasha No. 75/2026 registered at Police Station Supela, Durg registered and Criminal Proceeding No. 347/2026 was initiated under Sections 126 and 135(3) of the BNSS, along with Section 170 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 151 of 4 the erstwhile CrPC, against him alleging apprehension of breach of peace and public safety by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the Istagasha is fabricated and internally contradictory, as it records the time of information as 1:30 PM, whereas the arrest memo records his arrest at 1:00 PM. It is further stated that the petitioner possesses a time-stamped video showing him peacefully walking on the street at 1:23 PM on 19.04.2026, which, according to him, falsifies the allegation that he was fighting or quarrelling at 1:00 PM. It is further the case of the petitioner that, at the time of his arrest, the grounds of arrest were neither furnished to him in writing nor communicated to his family members. According to the petitioner, the entire preventive proceeding was undertaken mechanically, without disclosing the specific cognizable offence allegedly intended to be committed by him, without examining the other party, without any complaint from a member of the public and without associating any independent witness. In order to obtain CCTV footage of the alleged place of incident, the petitioner submitted an RTI application, but the authorities replied that the CCTV system was merely "Live TV" and had no storage capacity. The petitioner submits that the entire action is illegal and arbitrary and seeks quashing of Istagasha No. 75/2026 and Criminal Proceeding No. 347/2026, along with disciplinary action against the concerned respondent, compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, preservation of relevant CCTV footage, and other appropriate reliefs. The 5 learned counsel for the petitioner also submit that one another petition WPS No.5135/2021 is pending before this Court wherein he raised grievance that despite tendering resignation by the petitioner, he has not been released. 4. Learned State counsel, opposing the petition, submits that the police authorities acted in exercise of their statutory powers upon receiving information giving rise to an apprehension of breach of peace and disturbance of public order. It is contended that the preventive proceedings were initiated in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and that the allegations raised by the petitioner, including the alleged discrepancy in the timing of the Istagasha and arrest memo and the availability of a time- stamped video, are matters requiring examination of the record and evidence and cannot, by themselves, justify quashing of the proceedings at this stage. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy in accordance with law and that no sufficient ground has been made out to establish mala fides or deliberate abuse of the preventive provisions. Accordingly, dismissal of the writ petition and rejection of the reliefs sought by the petitioner are prayed for. He would further submit that the finding has been recorded against the petitioner proposing termination of the petitioner from service, in the departmental enquiry and there are also criminal antecedents against the petitioner. 6 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court finds that the challenge to Istagasha No. 75/2026 dated 19.04.2026 and Criminal Proceeding No. 347/2026 is essentially founded upon the alleged discrepancy in the timing of the proceedings, the petitioner's claim of having been peacefully present at the relevant time, and the alleged non-compliance with the procedural safeguards at the time of his detention. However, the mere alleged existence of a discrepancy between the time mentioned in the Istagasha and the time recorded in the arrest memo, by itself, would not be sufficient to conclusively establish that the entire preventive proceeding was fabricated or actuated by mala fides. The petitioner's contention regarding the time-stamped video and the absence of CCTV footage are matters which require appreciation of the evidentiary material and cannot, in the facts of the present case, be treated as determinative for quashing the proceedings in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 7. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner, according to his case, with respect to his grievance against the Superintendent of Police, Durg was intending to approach the higher authority for ventilating the said grievance on 19.04.2026. The petitioner has alleged that instead of permitting him to pursue his representation, he was subjected to preventive action. However, 7 from the material placed before this Court, no sufficient basis is made out at this stage to conclusively hold that the impugned proceedings were initiated solely with the object of preventing the petitioner from approaching the higher authority. The allegation regarding non-communication of the grounds of arrest and other procedural safeguards, if established, may have legal consequences; nevertheless, such disputed factual aspects cannot, without further examination of the relevant record, form the sole basis for granting all the reliefs claimed in the present petition. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out a sufficient case for quashing Istagasha No. 75/2026 dated 19.04.2026 or Criminal Proceeding No. 347/2026. The disputed questions relating to the exact sequence of events, the evidentiary value of the alleged time-stamped video, the circumstances in which the petitioner was detained, and the correctness of the allegations made against him cannot appropriately be adjudicated in the present writ petition merely on the basis of the pleadings and documents placed on record. 9. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil