Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22424-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 301 of 2025 1 - Podiyam Sankar S/o Podiyam Singa Aged About 22 Years R/o Nimalguda, Kista Ram, Konta, District - Sukma (C.G.) 2 - Madvi Joga S/o Madvi Laxmaiya Aged About 37 Years R/o 02, Nimalguda, Kista Ram, Konta, District - Sukma (C.G.) 3 - Kunjam Bichchhem S/o Kunjam Nanda Aged About 27 Years R/o 45, Patelpara, Durandarbha, Post Office - Gondpalli, District - Sukma (C.G.) 4 - Kunjam Kamla S/o Kunjam Bichem Aged About 28 Years R/o Silger, Durandarbha, Tahsil - Silger, District - Sukma (C.G.) 5 - Lekam Kamu S/o Lekam Aytu Aged About 35 Years R/o Silger, Durandarbha, , Tahsil - Silger, District - Sukma (C.G.) 6 - Lekam Lakki S/o Lekam Aytu Aged About 45 Years R/o Durandarbha, Post Office - Gondpalli, District - Sukma (C.G.) 7 - Podiyam Mutte W/o Podiyam Singa Aged About 28 Years R/o Nimalguda, Kista Ram, Konta, District - Sukma (C.G.) 8 - Madvi Krishna S/o Madvi Bojji Aged About 27 Years R/o Nimalguda, Kista Ram, Konta, District - Sukma (C.G.) 9 - Madvi Nagesh S/o Madvi Muda Aged About 25 Years R/o Nimalguda, Kista Ram, Konta, District - Sukma (C.G.) VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.05.29 18:12:42 +0530 2 10 - Madvi Linga S/o Madvi Passe Aged About 38 Years R/o House No.-57, Nimalguda, Kista Ram, Konta, District - Sukma (C.G.) 11 - Madvi Laxmi W/o Madvi Linga Aged About 34 Years R/o House No.-57, Nimalguda, Kista Ram, Konta, District - Sukma (C.G.) 12 - Madvi Rame W/o Madvi Joga Aged About 35 Years R/o 02, Nimalguda, Kista Ram, Konta, District - Sukma (C.G.) 13 - Kadti Laxmi S/o Kadti Mukesh Aged About 45 Years R/o 20, Dhuran Darbha, Silger, Jagargunda, District - Sukma (C.G.) 14 - Manju Lekham D/o Pandu Lekham Aged About 26 Years R/o House No.- 52, Metta, Hirapur, Basaguda, District - Bijapur (C.G.) 15 - Kadti Hirma S/o Kadti Hiriya Aged About 48 Years R/o Silger, Dhurandarabha, District - Sukma (C.G.) 16 - Lekham Lachchhu S/o Lekham Budhra Aged About 29 Years R/o 99, Duran Darbha, Silger, Jagargunda, District - Sukma (C.G.) 17 - Lekam Bhima S/o Lekam Dhruva Aged About 36 Years R/o Madopara, Durandarbha, Silger, District - Sukma (C.G.) 18 - Muchaki Bhime D/o Muchaki Kosa Aged About 26 Years R/o Narsapuram, Chintalnar, District - Sukma (C.G.) 19 - Lekam Hungi S/o Lekam Bhima Aged About 39 Years R/o House No.- 201, Madopara, Durandarbha, Silger, District - Sukma (C.G.) 20 - Madvi Aytu S/o Channu Aged About 28 Years R/o 54, Schoolpara, Kondasavii, Jagargunda, District - Sukma (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 2 - Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarter, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Commissioner Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) 5 - Inspector General Of Police Bastar Range, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) 6 - Superintendent Of Police Sukma, District - Sukma (C.G.) 7 - Collector Sukma, District - Sukma (C.G.) 8 - Station House Officer Police Station - Jagargunda, Sukma (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners For Respondents/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sanbha Rumnong, Advocate and Mr. Samuel David, Advocate Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 29/05/2025 1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are claiming themselves from Tribal Christian Community and have been subjected to target communal violence in villages of District Sukma. Chhattisgarh including assaults, displacement and destruction of homes and property, sacrilege of religious materials and threats to life and liberty for practicing Christianity. 4 2. According to the petitioners despite repeated oral and written complaints to the police and administrative authorities, no FIRs were registered and the State failed to provide protection and also failed to conduct fair investigation or rehabilitate the victims. The petitioners would also alleged that some officials even refused to acknowledge complaints or rebuked petitioners for their faith. 3. The petitioners have filed the present petition with the following prayer:- “In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, and in the interest of justice, equity, and protection of fundamental rights, the Petitioners most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: (1) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to ensure the safety, security and protection of the Petitioners along with measures to prevent recurrence of similar incidents; (ii) Direct the Respondent State to award fair, just, and adequate compensation to the Petitioners for the destruction of residential property, loss of livelihood, essential documents, and for the physical, mental, and emotional trauma inflicted upon them as a result of the communal violence; (iii) Direct the Respondents to strictly comply with the binding guidelines laid down by the 5 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Haroon v. Union of India, Archbishop Raphael Cheenath v. State of Orissa, State of Karnataka v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia and Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, and to file a detailed compliance affidavit before this Hon'ble Court outlining the measures undertaken for rehabilitation, protection, investigation, prevention, and compensation in cases of communal violence across the State; (iv) Constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the supervision of this Hon'ble Court to conduct a fair, impartial, and time-bound investigation into the incidents of communal violence highlighted in the present petition, including the incident dated 24/04/2025 (Annexure P/9); (v) Direct initiation of appropriate criminal and departmental proceedings against the then concerned police officers and administrative authorities for their willful dereliction of duty, including failure to register FIRs, refusal to provide protection, and denial of legal remedies to the Petitioners, and further direct issuance of standing instructions to all law enforcement officials across the State to promptly register FIRs and provide immediate protection in all future incidents involving communal violence; (vi) Direct the constitution of a commission of 6 Inquiry under Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952, to examine the incidents of violence against Tribal Christians across the State of Chhattisgarh and suggest adequate measures to prevent recurrence of similar incidents; (vii) Pass any other order(s), direction(s), or relief(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that in one of the complaint lodged by some of the petitioners for an incident, FIR has already been registered and the matter is under investigation. He would submit that the petitioners preferred the present petition seeking multiple reliefs. As far as seeking compensation, constitution of a SIT for the incident dated 24/04/2025 as well as constitution of a Commission of inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 to examine the incident of violence across the State of Chhattisgarh is concerned, the same is not maintainable in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would also submit that if the petitioners are raising the grievance in respect of the incident dated 24/04/2025 that no FIR has been lodged is concerned, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable as if the petitioners are having any grievance regarding non-registration of FIR, they would avail the remedy as may be available to them under the law. Learned counsel would further submit that the grievance of the petitioners’ can be very well redressed before 7 the concerned Court by filing an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. He further submits that the controversy involved in the present matter has already been decided by the High Court of Allahabad in Misc. Bench No.24492 of 2020 : Waseem Haider Vs. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Home Others vide judgment and order dated 14.12.2020 dismissing the said petition, hence, the present petition be also dismissed in terms of the said order. 5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. The reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the present writ petition appears to be vague and multiple in nature. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the relief sought for by the petitioners regarding compensation, constitution of SIT and constitution of Inquiry Commission under the Act, 1952 cannot be directed. However, as far as non registration of FIR in respect of the incident dated 24/04/2025,
Decision
the Writ petition is not maintainable and if the petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents’ authorities with regard to non-registration of FIR, the petitioners may approach before the appropriate authorities in the light of the decisions rendered in the Waseem Haider (Supra) 7. In view of the above, we do not find any good ground to interfere with present petition, therefore the present petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed, with a liberty to approach the authorities before the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances, if any. 8 8. Consequently, all the pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved