Nafr High Court
Case Details
BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.07.24 18:17:27 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:35668-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 422 of 2025 1 - Manohar Pratap Singh S/o Shri Narpal Singh, Aged About 48 Years President, Satgarh Tanwar Samaj, Office - Satgarh Bhawan, Near DLS College, Ashok Nagar, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.), Posted As Principal Govt. H.S.School, Khisora (Baloda), District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2 - Virendra Kumar Singh S/o Shri Shravan Singh Aged About 42 Years Sports In-Charge, Satgarh Tanwar Samaj, Office - Satgarh Bhawan, Near DLS College, Ashok Nagar, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.), R/o Village - Kendadand, Post - Majhgawan, Tahsil - Belgahna, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) versus ... Petitioners 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Kota, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Station House Officer, Out Post - Belgahna, Police Station - Kota, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Dr. Mekhalendra Pratap Singh S/o Chandrabhan Singh, Posted As Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Bastar Fighters, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Deputy G.A. For Respondent No.6 Mr.Saumya Rai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24.07 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 5/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking following relief(s): “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned notice dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent No.4 against the petitioners. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 4 and other authorities to refrain from taking any coercive action, including registering FIRs or summoning other members of the Satgarh Tanwar Samaj, based on the complaint of respondent No. 6, until the matter is adjudicated. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare that the petitioners' actions in issuing the notice dated 29.04.2025 were within their rights as office-bearers of the Satgarh Tanwar Samaj and do not constitute any cognizable offense under the law. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and 3 appropriate.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 is President of Satgarh Tanwar Samaj and petitioner No.2 is Sports In-charge of Sports Wings. The office-bearers, members and followers of Satgarh Tanwar Samaj follows the social norms of Satgarh Chhatri Samaj. Respondent No.6 performed his marriage against the social norms of Satgarh Chhatri Samaj, then some members and followers made a complaint against this act of respondent No.6. Petitioner No.1, being the President of Satgarh Tanwar Samaj, sent a notice to respondent No.6 on 29.04.2025 mentioning therein that Dr. Mekhlendra Pratap Singh/respondent No.6 has recently married a girl from Nan Damali, Surguja, in violation of the social norms of Satgarh Tanwar Samaj. This act falls under the provisions of Satgarh Tanwar Samaj's disciplinary code, page 5, Disciplinary Format-1, Social Offenses Section (B), Subsection 2. Consequently, by entering into this marital relationship against social norms, Dr. Mekhlendra Pratap Singh has dissociated himself from Satgarh Tanwar Samaj. Therefore, based on the proposal and approval of the central and branch executive committees during the aforementioned meeting, Dr. Mekhlendra Pratap Singh is deemed excluded from Satgarh Tanwar Samaj effective from the date of marriage and shall not be included in any social programs. Discussions during the meeting revealed that some office-bearers/members of Satgarh Tanwar Samaj participated in the aforementioned marriage ceremony. While official confirmation of their participation is yet to be established, if the branch executive committee confirms their presence, those office-bearers/members 4 may be barred from participating in social programs until a final decision is made at the upcoming annual convention. 4. When respondent No.6 received the aforesaid notice, he sent a legal notice dated 28.05.2025 directing the petitioners to withdraw the letter /order dated 29.04.2025 and also to publish an apology letter in favour of respondent No.6 and his family members immediately within 3 days, failing which respondent No.6 shall initiate criminal proceedings as all we as civil proceedings against the petitioners before the competent court or forum. On 21.06.2025, the petitioners sent their reply to the legal notice through their advocate stating therein that the petitioners have neither insulted nor socially boycotted respondent No.6. The petitioners have full faith in the law and Constitution of India and are capable of presenting their case legally. Thereafter, respondent No.6 made a written complaint to the respondent No.5/Out Post Belgahna, Police Station Kota, stating inter-alia that on 25.04.2025, he married Anisha Singh from Bargawan, following all rituals and customs. The office-bearers of Satgarh Tanwar Samaj have declared this marriage to be against social norms and through order dated 29.04.2025, signed by the President, the petitioner has been socially boycotted. Virendra Kumar Singh/petitioner No.2 who is an influential office-bearer of Satgarh Tanwar Samaj and an active member of the Bonda-Karni Raj Social WhatsApp group (Kenda/Karni Puma Shakti), played an active role in implementing this order. He publicized the boycott order in the group and pressured community members to foster social animosity. Even after his marriage, on 14.05.2025, a meeting was convened in Village 5 Manikpur with an intent to humiliate his sister during which Virendra Kumar Singh's father used derogatory language against her and threatened her with social boycott. Furthermore, Virendra Kumar Singh threatened his relatives via phone calls and other means, stating that those who attended his marriage would also be boycotted and fined lakhs of rupees. These actions by Virendra Kumar Singh violate his fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, constitute defamation under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and fall under the category of offence under Sections 196 and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, as well as Section 7(2) (ii) of the Civil Rights Protection Act, 1955. Additionally, Virendra Kumar Singh, a teacher by profession, has violated Rule 15(2) of the Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, and acted against the Supreme Court's guidelines prohibiting social boycotts. 5. Respondent No.6 made a written complaint to Out Post Belgahna and on the basis of said complaint, respondent No. 4 took cognizance of the aforesaid complaint in influence of the high rank holding the complainant/respondent No.6 and issued the notice dated 16.06.2025 to the petitioners. The notice is vague and does not disclose the precise nature of the complaint or the provisions of law under which the petitioners are being summoned, rendering it procedurally defective. Hence, this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.4 is bad, illegal and arbitrary which deserves to be quashed. He further submits that 6 the petitioners have neither insulted nor socially boycotted the respondent No.6, despite this respondent No. 6 made a complaint to the police and respondent No.4 is summoning notices to the members of Satgarh Tanwar Samaj one by one and threatening them with FIRs in an intimidating manner. This demonstrates how the influence of a position is used to dominate the community members of Satgarh Tanwar Samaj. He also submits that the impugned notice dated 16.06.2025 issued by respondent No. 4 fails to provide specific details of the allegations against the petitioners, thereby denying them a fair opportunity to respond or defend themselves. The notice is vague and does not disclose the precise nature of the complaint or the provisions of law under which the petitioners are being summoned, rendering it procedurally defective. He contended that issuance of notice by respondent No. 4 appears to be influenced by high-ranking position of respondent No. 6, as alleged in the complaint. This suggests an abuse of authority and a mala fide exercise of power, aimed at harassing the petitioners and other members of Satgarh Tanwar Samaj without a prima facie case. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) lacks the jurisdiction to issue notices in matters pertaining to internal community disputes or alleged violations of social norms, which are civil in nature and fall outside the purview of police powers unless a cognizable offence is clearly established. He further contended that action of respondent No. 4, in issuing the notice and allegedly threatening members of Satgarh Tanwar Samaj with FIRs, infringed upon the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and 7 expression) of the Constitution of India, as they are being targeted for exercising their right to enforce community norms within their organization. The notice dated 16.06.2025 does not adhere to the procedural requirements under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for summoning individuals for inquiry. As such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned notice dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) deserves to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 5/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners have filed their reply to the notice issued to them and if any action is taken against them they have right to challenge the same before appropriate authority. As such, the writ petition as framed and filed is not maintainable. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned notice and other documents appended with writ petition. 10. From perusal of the pleadings, it appears that Respondent No.6 performed his marriage with Anisha Singh against the social norms of Satgarh Chhatri Samaj, then some members and followers made a complaint against this act of respondent No.6. Petitioner No.1, being the President of Satgarh Tanwar Samaj, sent a notice to respondent No.6 on 29.04.2025 and based on the proposal and approval of the central and branch executive committees, respondent No.6 is deemed excluded from Satgarh Tanwar Samaj effective from the date of marriage and shall not be included in any social programs. When 8 respondent No.6 received the aforesaid notice, he sent a legal notice dated 28.05.2025 directing the petitioners to withdraw the letter /order dated 29.04.2025 and also to publish an apology letter in favour of respondent No.6 and his family members immediately within 3 days, failing which respondent No.6 shall initiate criminal proceedings as all we as civil proceedings against the petitioners before the competent court or forum. The petitioners sent their reply to the legal notice stating therein that the petitioners have neither insulted nor socially boycotted respondent No.6. Thereafter, respondent No.6 made a written complaint to the respondent No.5/Out Post Belgahna, Police Station Kota and respondent No. 4 took cognizance of the aforesaid complaint and issued the notice dated 16.06.2025 to the petitioners, in which the petitioners have filed their reply. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the notice dated 16.06.2025 and also considering the fact that the petitioners have filed their reply to the impugned notice dated 16.06.2025 and material available on record, we do not find any scope for interference in this petition. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to take recourse to law if any cause of action arises in future. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu