Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.04.29 11:12:21 +0530 2025:CGHC:18990-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 97 of 2025 1 - Raghunath Das Jais S/o Late Ganeshram Jais Aged About 89 Years R/o Gudhiyari Padav, Near Harish Traders, Raipur 492009, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sangeeta Ramkishan Jais W/o Ramkishan Jais Aged About 51 Years R/o Gudhiyari Padav, Near Harish Traders, Raipur - 492009, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarters Nava Raipur, Sector - 19, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Inspector General Of Police Raipur Range, 35, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001. 4 - Senior Superintendent Of Police Collectorate, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 5 - Thana Telibandha Through Station House Officer, Telibandha Main Road, Opposite Shree Hanuman Mandir, Shatabdi Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492006. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 28.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ankit Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents/State. 2. The petitioners have filed this review petition against the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by this Court in WPCR No. 185/2025, whereby this Court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners herein. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the original writ petition was filed in light of an unauthorized and unlawful raid conducted at the petitioners' residential premises by police officials and unidentified civilians, without a warrant or legal justification. The petitioners, including an 89-year-old senior citizen and his daughter, were subjected to grave harassment and violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22 of the Constitution. Despite submitting formal complaints to authorities on two occasions, no inquiry or redressal was initiated. The police action was later vaguely attributed to a "routine investigation" allegedly linked to the Petitioners' son-in-law, who is a resident of Pune and was merely visiting as a guest. No FIR or material was placed on record to support this claim. The Hon'ble 3 Court dismissed the writ petition without granting any relief and appeared to rely upon the unsubstantiated justification provided by the State. The petitioners respectfully submit that the impugned order suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record and non- consideration of material facts and legal principles, including the mandatory requirement of an FIR prior to the initiation of investigation and the necessity of a valid search warrant or authorization prior to entering a citizen's home. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a judgment passed by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the matter of Sharda Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 1999 CRI. L.J. 1880, wherein it has been observed as follows:- “9. In the instant case, there has been a flagrant violation of the above provisions of law. Admittedly, there was no registration of any FIR and the visit of the police officer to the house of the petitioner cannot be described as having been made in the course of an investigation. When it was not in course of an investigation, the search could have been made after recording in writing the grounds of the belief of the police officer as to why search was necessary. He was further required to record his reasons that unless the search was made without delay, there was possibility of concealment of the material to be searched out. The report was allegedly made on 13-11-1995 and the raid was admittedly made on 15-11-1995. Prima facie, there was no urgency for the raid on 15-11-1995 even if there had been any on 13-11-1995. It has been indicated that in the general diary entry neither the report of Ram 4 Swaroop was entered nor was there any entry that the police officer was proceeding to make any search nor do we find any entry concerning his return after the futile search. It is also required that whenever any search is made, a paper is to be prepared even if it is a case of no seizure. No such report was prepared nor any respectable citizen of the locality was called as required under Section 100(2) of the Cr. P. C. There is nothing on record to indicate that before entering into the house of the petitioner, the female inmates were given any chance of withdrawal from the place.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly submits that the order passed by this court on 03.04.2025, would come in the way of the petitioners, if they approach the appropriate forum for the redressal of their grievance, hence some liberty be granted by this Court in that regard. 6. We have perused the impugned order under review. 7. It appears that the petitioners by presentation of this review petition seek an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition and further the case law which has been relied upon by the petitioners of Allahabad High Court was also also not placed before this Court when the matter was dismissed on merits and same has been placed in the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law as it amounts to reopening of the case. 8. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation 5 cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law (Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai1, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt)2, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others3, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others4, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others5 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others6.) 9. The grounds raised by review petitioners in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 10. 11. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. No cost(s). It is needless to say that the order passed in the writ petition would not cause any prejudice to the right of the petitioners, if they approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet 1 (1987) 1 SCC 61 2 (1995) 1 SCC 170 3 (1996) 10 SCC 174 4 AIR 2000 SC 1650 5 (2013) 2 SCC 1 6 (2017) 4 SCC 692