1 2026:CGHC:15705-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 184 of 2026 Vishnukant Patel S/o Rajeshwari Patel Aged About 49 Years R/o Village- Pahiya, P.S. - Chandora Distt- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department of Home Affairs Mahanadi Bhawan Nawa Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director General of Police, Police Headquarter Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3. The, Inspector General of Police Surguja Range Ambikapur Distt- Surguja (C.G.) 4. The Superintendent of Police Surajpur, Distt- Surajpur (C.G.) 5. The Station House Officer Police Station -Chandora, Distt- Surajpur (C.G.) 6. The Chowki In-Charge, Police Chowki- Revti, P.S. Chandaura, District Surajpur (C.G.) 7. Omnarayan Patel S/o Rajeshwari Patel Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Revti, Police Chowki- Revti, Chandora Distt- Surajpur (C.G.) 8. Reva Patel S/o Omnarayan Patel Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Revti, Police Chowki- Revti, Chandora Distt- Surajpur (C.G.) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.04.07 17:45:19 +0530 2 9. Suryadeep Patel S/o Omnarayan Patel Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Revti, Police Chowki- Revti. Chandora Distt- Surajpur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : None. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.04.2026 1. None appears, nor is any representation made on behalf of the petitioners to press this petition when the case is called out. 2. Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 6, is present. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to register the First Information Report for the offence committed by respondent No. 7, 8 & 9 on the basis of complain lodge by the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to set aside the non-Cognizable (NC) report dated 08.11.2025 Annexure P/4 registered by the 3 respondent No. 6 and further be please to direct the police authorities to register the FIR and initiated the proper enquiry in respect of offence committed by the respondent No. 7, 8 & 9. 10.3 That any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. From perusal of the prayers and pleadings made in the present petition, it is evident that the petitioner is a farmer residing in Village Pahiya, District Surajpur, and claims to be the lawful owner and cultivator of land situated in Village Revti bearing Khasra No. 401/2, 402/2 and 402/4, admeasuring 0.12, 0.36 and 0.20 hectares respectively. It is stated that the petitioner has been continuously engaged in agricultural activities on the said land for the past 22 years and had harvested his crop on 06.11.2025 using a reaper and thereafter returned to Village Pahiya. It is further stated that on 07.11.2025, he received telephonic information that respondents No. 7, 8 and 9 were allegedly collecting his harvested paddy and intended to process the same using a thresher. Upon receiving such information, the petitioner is stated to have reported the matter to Police Chowki Revti, whereupon two police personnel accompanied him to the spot and allegedly found respondents No. 7, 8 and 9 and stopped the activity. Thereafter, the said respondents were brought to the Police Chowki Revti. It is further averred that despite the said facts, the Chowki In-charge/respondent No. 6 failed to act impartially and no acknowledgment of the complaint 4 was provided to the petitioner. It is also stated that in the Non- Cognizable (NC) report dated 08.11.2025, respondent No. 6 recorded Khasra No. 402/1 as the place of occurrence, whereas the petitioner claims that he neither cultivates the said land nor reported any incident in respect thereof. It is alleged that by recording an incorrect Khasra number, the matter has been treated as a civil dispute instead of a criminal offence. 5. It is further stated that on 10.11.2025, the petitioner submitted a written complaint to respondent No. 5 (SHO, Chandaura) and respondent No. 4 (Superintendent of Police, District Surajpur), along with documents including copies of the B-1 Khasra and Panchnama. It is stated that despite the same, no action has been taken and no FIR has been registered against respondents No. 7, 8 and 9. It is further stated that the petitioner again submitted a representation on 25.11.2025 before respondent No. 4, however, no action has been taken till date. Hence, the present 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 corresponding to Section 175(3) or Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is further submitted that the controversy raised in the present petition already stands settled by the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Misc. Bench No. 24492 of 2020 (Waseem Haider vs. State of U.P. through Principal 5 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. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the nature of relief sought in the present petition, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available before the competent Court under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 8. In view of the same, the present writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before the appropriate forum. 9. After passing of the order, Mr. Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, appeared and submitted that his present may kindly be marked. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan