Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2748-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 510 of 2024 Khanchand Kodwani S/o Lt. Chetan Das Kodwani Aged About 56 Years R/o Kodwani General Store, Kukurbeda Road Amanaka District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home And Police Department, Sachivalay/ Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Naya Raipur, Dist. - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Superintendent Of Police Raipur, Dist. - Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Station House OfÏcer Of The Police Station - Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Purnachand Mitra D/o Lt. Vimal Chand Mitra Aged About 85 Years R/o B- 20, Aashish Nagar (W), Risali Bhilai, P.S. - Nawai, District Durg Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
6 - Smt. Swagat Ghosh W/o Devashish Ghosh Aged About 44 Years R/o B-20, Aashish Nagar (W), Risali Bhilai, P.S. - Nawai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 7 - Shri Prosenjit Mitra S/o Purnachand Mitra Aged About 54 Years R/o B-20, Aashish Nagar (W), Risali Bhilai, P.S. - Nawai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Y.C.Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate. For Respondent No. : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. 1 to 4 / State Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Y.C.Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/ respondents. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “(i) It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the Police Authority should not interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner, when the civil dispute of the aforesaid parties is already pending before the Civil Court. (ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted.” 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is in possession of the part of the land since 1989 bearing Khasra No. 3789/2 (changed khasra No. 378/3) situated at village Dumartalab, Ward Pandit Ishwari Charan Shukla Ward No. 22, P.H. No. 53, Revenue Circle, Raipur, District Raipur. On the said land, he runs a shop. On 27.07.1994 the shop of the petitioner has been forcefully closed at the instance of one Smt. Rani Vishwas claiming her ownership with the help of the police authority. But when the complaint has been made by the Shopkeepers of 3 the aforesaid area to the Ex-Legislator namely Shri Tarun Chatterjee, then the Ex-Legislator visited the place and asked the Police with regard to the closure of the shops, then no order has been provided, and then only the shop of the petitioner could be opened. A legal notice was given to the petitioner by one Smt. Sunita Rani Vishwas to vacate the aforesaid land and the reply has also been given by the petitioner with a specific question to provide the paper with regards to the ownership of the aforesaid land, but nothing has been provided. The petitioner has also paid all the taxes with respect to the aforesaid land. 4. Mr. Y.C.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the instance of the private respondents, a social meeting has been held between the parties for the settlement of the disputes with regard to the aforesaid land and then only an agreement to sale was executed between the parties on the different dates, in which it is clearly reflected that total amount of Rs. 2,25,000 has already been paid to the private respondents as an advance/earnest amount for the execution of sale deed. On 05.09.2024, a fire accident has been taken place at the aforesaid shops of the petitioner and then the petitioner had contacted the private parties for the execution of the sale deed as per the agreement to sell, but no action has been taken by the private respondents to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The private respondents have been interfering with the peaceful possession of the land of the petitioner and as because of that reason the petitioner has also lodged a written complaint against the private complainant before the Police authorities for giving threatening of life to the petitioner to vacate the aforesaid land. Even the legal notice has also been sent on behalf of the petitioner to the private respondents for the execution of sale deed in favour of the petitioner for the aforesaid land, but no reply has 4 ever been given to the legal notice of the petitioner. The petitioner again made a written complaint before the police authorities in which it has been clearly mentioned that the private respondents were interfering in the possession of the land and even threatening of life has also been give, but the police authority proceeded under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. stating that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. As the petitioner was being harassed by the activity done by the private respondents, the petitioner has filed a civil suit for the declaration of title and permanent injunction, even an application for temporary injunction under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 which is also pending for the consideration. On the one hand, the police authority has taken no cognizance on the complaint of the present petitioner, but on the other hand the police authority has came to the alleged shop of the petitioner for the dispossession and even a offer of Rs. 21,00,000 has also been given to dispossess from the aforesaid area. On 17.11.2024 the private respondents have come to the shop of the petitioner and demolished the wall of the shop without taking any prior permission from any authority and the same has also been informed to the police authority, but no action has been taken by the police authority. Even the police authority is continuously harassing the petitioner and his family members to vacate the aforesaid shop. When on the complaint of the petitioner against the private respondents, no action has been taken by the police authority then the petitioner has filled complaint before the superior authority i.e. before the S.P. and City Superintendent of Police but still no action has been taken by the police authority. The Police of P.S Sarswati Nagar Raipur has taken the son of the petitioner in custody without any notice / warrant and the police authority themselves threatened the son of the petitioner to vacate the aforesaid land. 5 5. Mr. Sharma lastly submits that the limited prayer of the petitioner is that the police authorities may not interfere in the civil dispute which is already been pending between the parties in the civil Court. 6. Mr. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that on the last date of hearing i.e. on 06.01.2025, this Court had granted a week’s time to the respondents/State to seek instructions and further, the Director General of Police was also directed to file his personal afÏdavit in the matter. Pursuant thereto, the afÏdavit has been filed by the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, wherein it has been stated that directions were issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur vide a letter no. PHQ/CID/Legal Cell- 18/25 dated 10.01.2025 to appoint an Additional Superintendent of Police rank ofÏcer to submit a detailed report after investigating the allegation, assigning the responsibility of concerned guilty ofÏcers, and taking appropriate disciplinary action against them. Based on the report submitted by the SSP, Raipur vide letter no. SSP/Raipur/Reader-1/M-13/2025 dated 14.01.2025, the Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range has submitted a report vide letter No. IG/Raipur/PS/Section- 1/General 250-A dated 14.01.2025 detailing the action pursuant to the letter from the ofÏce of the DGP. As per the report submitted by the Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range, that pursuant to the letter received from the DGP, the SSP, Raipur had directed the Additional Superintendent of Police, Raipur West to establish accountability of concerned ofÏcer/s vide letter no. SSP/Raipur/Steno-1/PE-01/2025 dated 10.01.25. As per the report submitted by the IGP, Raipur Range, one Shankar Singh Kesaria had lodged a written complaint of illegal encroachment over the property in his rightful possession on 17.11.2024 against the petitioner Khanchand 6 Kodwani, his son Amrit Kodwani and few others. Due to this, the petitioner was called to the Police Station, Saraswati Nagar. Upon his visit to the Police Station, the petitioner also gave a written complaint on the same day i.e. 17.11.2024 against Purnachand Mitra, Smt. Swagat Ghosh, Vijay Kant Dubey, and others. The petitioner alleged that he is being coerced to vacate the property that he has occupied for many years. The police went to the spot and counseled both sides to maintain peace. On 20.11.2024, written statements were taken on both the complaints in the Saraswati Nagar PS. Because of their continued dispute over the property, a proceeding to prevent any breach of peace under section 126/135(3) of BNSS, istagasa no. 304/24, dated 20.11.2024 was presented against the petitioner Khanchand Kodwani and Amrit Lal Kodwani for maintaining peace and good behavior while the matter was under consideration in the civil court. They have been bound over via Case no. 1421/2024, interim order dated 11/12/2024 by the Court of SDM (City) Uttam Rajak. A proceeding to prevent any breach of peace under section 126/135(3) of BNSS, istagasa no. 303/24, dated 20.11.2024 was presented against Shankar Singh Kesaria and Vijay Kant Dubey for keeping peace and good behavior while the matter was under consideration in the civil court. They have been bound over via case no. 1422/2024, interim order dated 14/01/2025 by the court of SDM (City) Uttam Rajak. Previously, an NCR (faina) No. 167/2024 dated 01.10.2024 was given to the petitioner on his written complaint against Sankar Singh Kesari and Vijay Kant Dubey concerning the dispute over the possession of the same property. As per the report submitted, no action was taken by the police to favour any of the two sides. 7. From perusal of the averments and pleadings made in the petition, it appears that the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that despite being a 7 civil dispute, the police is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner at the instance of the private respondents. Since the allegations levelled against the Police authorities have been enquired into by the higher authorities, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. As the police authorities have already come to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and the police and in abundant caution has taken preventive action against both the parties as there have been complaint against both petitioner and the private respondents. Even otherwise, if the dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents is civil in nature, the police has no role to play and the parties may get their rights settled with regard to the land in dispute from the competent Court of law. 8.
Decision
In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.01.17 11:09:40 +0530