Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:17806-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 220 of 2025 Pankaj Dahire S/o Dalchand Dahire Aged About 37 Years Occupation - Government Service (Upper Collector And Sub Divisional OfÏcer), (Revenue), Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh Permanent Address Azad Nagar Pandariya Road Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Station House OfÏcer Mahila Police Station Near Nalghar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
3 - Ms. Prerna Aahire W/o Pankaj Dahire Aged About 34 Years Occupation Service (IInd Civil Judge, Senior Division), Baikuntpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh 4 - Mamta Dewangan Additional Superintendent Of Police (Transport), In front Of Circuit House, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.P.Sharma alongwith Mr. Sudhir Verma, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. No. 1 and 2. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21/04/2025 1. 2. 3. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. Heard Mr. B.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): “i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or appropriate writ by which quash the notice/summons dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No. 2. ii. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or appropriate writ direct therein to the respondents 01, 02 & 04 do not investigate and do not conduct counselling on application of respondent No. 3 dated 26.03.2025. iii. That, any other relief/reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.” 4. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner is an Upper Collector and Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) at Mainpur, District Gariyaband. Respondent No. 3 is his wife and is posted as II Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baikunthpur, District Koria. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 was solemnized on 03.12.2017 at Raipur. The petitioner had been posted at various places namely Jagdalpur, Durg, surajpur, Bilaspur and Baikunthpur. 5. As per the petitioner, the respondent No. 3-wife started harassing to the 3 petitioner only after two months of the marriage. She often asked the petitioner not to talk with his mother, father, brother and sister and also asked not keep relation with them. The respondent No.3 always said to the petitioner not to come to her posting places. She used filthy language against the petitioner in front of the servant and staff members at Jagdalpur, Durg, Surajpur and Bilaspur. The respondent No.3 has made allegation against the petitioner that he is not smart and he is impotent and has been harassed in various ways. 6. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as soon as the petitioner filed an application for divorce, the respondent No. 3 has made a false complaint against him. The respondent No. 3 is herself a Civil Judge and her father is also holding the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police (Transport) who can influence the other police authorities. The father of the respondent No. 3 had time to time threatened the petitioner that if the petitioner will give divorce to respondent No. 3, he would be roped in false case. With malafide intention, the respondent No.3 has made written complaint on 26.03.2025 against the petitioner at Mahila Police Station, Raipur, which has no jurisdiction to investigate or call the petitioner for counseling. The respondent No.2 has issued notice / summons to the petitioner to appear on 04.04.2025 at Parivarik Salah Kendra, Raipur, conducted by Mahila Police Station, Raipur. The petitioner and the respondent No.3 both appeared before Additional Superintendent of Police (Transport) Respondent No.4 Mamta Dewangan, who has recorded the statement of both and gave next date 14.04.2025 for second counseling. The respondent No.3 has first time said in the counseling that the petitioner has illicit relation with a lady. The Additional S.P.- respondent No.4 has directed by mobile phone to that lady to appear before her against whom 4 the respondent No.3 has made allegation. The respondent No. 4 is the subordinate to the father of the respondent No. 3 and there is every possibility that the respondent No. 4 would act according to the whims and fancies of the father of respondent No. 3 and that the petitioner may be arrested if he attends the counselling proceedings and there is no chance of any fair counselling. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and 2 submits that the petition has been filed on mere apprehension and by the impugned notice, the petitioner has been called merely to attend the counselling proceedings. 8. According to Mr. Sharma, the petitioner has been called by the respondent No. 4 tomorrow i.e. on 22.04.2025 to attend the counselling proceedings. The prayer made in the petition is to restrain the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 from conducting any investigation or counselling on the application of respondent No. 3 dated 26.03.2025. Even as per Mr. Sharma, till date, no FIR has been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner has been merely called for attending the counselling proceedings and if the petitioner has any apprehension that he would not get a fair chance in the counselling proceedings as the respondent No. 4 is the subordinate to the father of the respondent No. 3 who is the DIG (Transport), he is at liberty to take recourse to law before the appropriate forum. 9. The petition itself seems to be premature as neither any FIR has been registered nor any investigation is being made at present. The police ofÏcials have merely called the petitioner for participating in the counselling process so that a possibility may be explored as to whether 5 there can be any amicable settlement between the parties. We do not find any good ground for interference at this stage and as such, this petition stands dismissed. (Arvind Kumar Verma) Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.24 13:20:55 +0530