1 - Vishwaroop Padhi S/o Abhay Kumar Padhi Aged About 44 Years R/o A-502 v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya
Case Details
1 / 6 2025:CGHC:6706-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 41 of 2025 1 - Vishwaroop Padhi S/o Abhay Kumar Padhi Aged About 44 Years R/o A-502, Shrinand Nagar, 05, Vezalpur, Ahamdabad, Gujarat, Through His Power Of Attorney Holder Manoj Deo, S/o Late P.C. Deo, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Rajbada, Sukma, Tahsil And District Sukma, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 4) ...Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent of Police Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 3 - The Station House Officer Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 4 - Sangram Singh S/o Late Harsh Deo Aged About 29 Years R/o Rangraj Bhawan, Main Road, Sukma, Tehsil And District Sukma Chhattisgarh 5 - Rajesh Nandani Dev Wd/o Late Harsh Deo Aged About 61 Years Rangraj Bhawan, Main Road, Sukma, Tehsil And District Sukma Chhattisgarh 6 - Kailash Jain Notary, Sukma, Tahsil And District Sukma Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
15/10/2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Revp No.153 of 2018 whereby the order dated 06/10/2018 passed in WPCR No.579 of 2018 was recalled. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the appellant herein had filed a WPCR bearing WPCR No.579 of 2018 whereby a direction was sought to the police authorities to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint dated 05/02/2018 before the learned Single Judge.
Arguments
7 - Kumar Jaidev S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Deo Aged About 58 Years R/o Nagar Panchayat Sukma, Tehsil And District Sukma Chhattisgarh ...Respondents For Appellant For Respondent/State : : For Respondents No.6 & 7 : Shri R.S. Baghel, Advocate Shri Shaleen Singh Baghel Govt. Advocate Shri Anup Majumdr, Advocate ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.02.07 17:10:12 +0530 2 / 6 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice & Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06/02/2025 Heard Mr. R.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the State-respondents & Mr. Anup Majumdr, learned Advocate for Respondents No.6 & 7 and perused the record. 1. The instant writ appeal has been filed against the order dated
Decision
The Single Judge by order dated 06/10/2018 disposed of the said writ petition and passed the following order:- 3. Perused the complaint Annexure P-6, which is addressed to the Station House Officer, Police Station- Sukma dated 05.02.2018 wherein the petitioner has alleged that his signature was forged and was notrised and thereafter on the basis of the forged signature in the consent letter, the money was withdrawn. Prima facie, it appears that cognizable offence has been reported. 4. In view of the law laid down by the 3 / 6 Supreme Court in case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2014) 2 SCC 1, since the cognizable offence has been reported, the concerned Police is directed to register the FIR and complete the investigation in accordance with law. It is further made clear that this Court has not observed anything on merit of this case attributing any allegation to anyone and the investigation officer shall be at liberty to exercise his jurisdiction on the basis of the evidence available to him. 5. With such observation, the petition stands disposed of. 3. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the order dated 06/10/2018 passed in WPCR No.579 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge, the Respondent No.4 therein filed a review petition bearing REVP No.153 of 2018 for review/recalling of the order dated 06/10/2018 passed in WPCR No.579 of 2018 on the ground that he was not issued notice before passing of the order and in fact upon the complaint of Respondent No.4 i.e. the appellant herein, a detailed investigation has already been carried out by the respondent authorities. He also stated that the forged complaint was lodged for ulterior purposes. 4. The learned Single Judge upon hearing learned counsel for the parties on 15/10/2024 disposed of the said review petition and passed the following order:- 3. Reply of the State in review petition would show that before such order is passed on 06.10.2018, the investigation has already been done and the statements of the petitioner had been recorded on 4 / 6 20.04.2018. 4. Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, learned counsel for respondent no.4 raises objection to the extent that the grounds raised in the review petition should not come in the way of proceedings. 5. Since it is stated the FIR was already registered and the Statements were recorded, it is open to the complainant/petitioner namely Vishwaroop Padhi that if he is still aggrieved, he can avail other remedy as available under the law. By strength of order dated 06.10.2018, the review petitioner cannot be subjected to further coercive action. 6. Therefore, In view of the facts which have been narrated by the State in the reply and since the documents have been filed, the order dated 06.10.2018 passed in WPCR No. 579 of 2018 is recalled. However, the grounds raised in the review petition shall not come in the way of respondents 1 to 3 to proceed in accordance with law. 5. Hence, the instant writ appeal has been filed by the original petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that after registering of the FIR on 28/10/2018 the order passed in WPCR No.579/2018 dated 06/10/2018 has already been executed and in such 5 / 6 situation the same order cannot be recalled by exercising the power of review. He would next contend that recalling the order dated 06/10/2018 would amount to quash and stop the investigation in cognizable offence which is against the settled provisions of law. He would lastly contend that by recalling the order dated 06/10/2018, the WPCR should have been restored so that the appellant could have put forth his grievance. Hence, it is prayed that the order dated 15/10/2024 passed in Review Petition No.153/2018 may be set aside. 7. The first and foremost contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge though has recalled the order dated 06/10/2018 passed in WPCR No.579/2018 at the instance of the accused/respondent No.4 (Kumar Jaidev) but the learned Single Judge has not restored the said WPCR and decided the same on merits, hence the petitioner has come up before this Court by means of review petition of the complainant against the order passed in review petition. 8. Considering the impugned order in which the learned Single Judge though has recalled the order dated 06/10/2018 passed by him but has erred in not restoring the said WPCR on its original number, which should have been done. In such eventuality, we deem appropriate to hear the case afresh. 9. Learned counsel for Respondents No.6 & 7 would submit that as per the FIR in the instant case was already registered in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 06/10/2018 and 6 / 6 after passing of the impugned order the report which was submitted at the instance of the petitioner has also been forwarded to the Magistrate and which is pending consideration. 10. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the grievance of the appellant can be very well redressed before the court below by filing an application under Section 156 (3) or 200 Cr.P.C. (now under Section 175(3) or under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). 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 as well as by this Court in WPCR No.333 of 2020 (Akhilesh Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), decided on 12.04.2023, dismissing the said petition, hence, the present appeal be also dismissed in terms of the said order. 11. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to avail the appropriate remedy before appropriate Forum. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ashu