Chattisgarh High Court
Mohit Ram Rathiya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12600-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 145 of 2026
Mohit Ram Rathiya S/o Suk Singh Rathiya Aged About 40 Years
Resident Of Village- Khamhar, Kogpara, Police Station- Dharamjaigarh,
District- Raigarh (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department,
Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Inspector General of Police Bilaspur Range, District- Bilaspur
(C.G.)
3. The Superintendent of Police Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) Dharamjaigarh, District-
Raigarh (C.G.)
5. The Station House Officer Police Station, Dharamjaigarh, District-
Raigarh (C.G.)
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by For Petitioner : Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate.
BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE Date:
For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate.
2026.03.17
17:56:17
+0530
2
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
17.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Harish Khuntiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents No. 1 & 2 for conducting investigation through independent agency for the death of Naresh Rathiya.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 for paying adequate compensation to the petitioner for the death of his nephew Naresh Rathiya.
10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given."3
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a citizen of India and, as such, is entitled to enjoy all the rights and protections guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 02.10.2025, the petitioner along with his nephew, Naresh Rathiya, and other relatives had gone to attend the Dashahra Fair at Dharamjaigarh. After enjoying the fair, they were returning to their village Khamhar by tractor. While returning, when they reached near village Gogojhariya, they noticed that two bikers, namely Ashish Rathiya and Saroj Bhoy, had collided with a truck and both had died on the spot. At that time, police personnel had already reached the place of incident and Ambulance (Dial-108) as well as Ambulance (Dial-112) were also present there. Both the bikers were known to the petitioner as well as to Naresh Rathiya. Therefore, when the tractor reached near the place of incident, Naresh Rathiya got down from the tractor to see the deceased persons.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the police personnel lifted the dead bodies of Ashish Rathiya and Saroj Bhoy into the Ambulance (Dial-108) and also took Naresh Rathiya in the same ambulance. It is submitted that at the time when Naresh Rathiya was taken into the Ambulance (Dial-108), he was alive. However, on the next day, i.e., 03.10.2025, the petitioner was informed that his nephew Naresh Rathiya had died and that his dead body was lying in Civil Hospital, Dharamjaigarh. It is further submitted that in respect of the 4 death of Ashish Rathiya and Saroj Bhoy, Merg No. 107/2025 was registered at Police Station Dharamjaigarh.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the death of Naresh Rathiya is highly suspicious and the petitioner has a strong apprehension that Naresh Rathiya was assaulted by the police personnel while he was being taken in the ambulance, which resulted in his death. It is further submitted that the petitioner reported the incident before Police Station Dharamjaigarh, where Merg No. 108/2025 was registered under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; however, till date no fair and proper investigation has been conducted regarding the suspicious death of Naresh Rathiya.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner has obtained a short video of the incident just prior to the death of Naresh Rathiya, which, according to him, indicates that the death of Naresh Rathiya is suspicious and that the police personnel are attempting to treat the same as an accidental death. It is also submitted that the postmortem of the dead body of Naresh Rathiya was conducted, wherein the cause of death has been mentioned as "blunt trauma to the head" and the manner of death has been described as consistent with accidental injuries. It is further submitted that the petitioner has made several complaints before the concerned authorities seeking a proper and fair investigation into the death of Naresh Rathiya, but no effective action has been taken so far. It is also contended that the parents of Naresh Rathiya had already passed away 5 and he was living with the petitioner like his own son. According to the petitioner, when Naresh Rathiya was taken into the ambulance by the police personnel, he was alive and in normal condition, and the police personnel forcibly took him into the ambulance despite the petitioner's objection, which was not heeded to by them.
8. Despite the serious suspicion surrounding the death of Naresh Rathiya and the complaints made by the petitioner, it is alleged that the respondent authorities have failed to conduct a proper and impartial investigation into the matter.
9. On a pointed query made by this Court as to whether any FIR has been lodged in the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaints have been made before the concerned authorities.
10. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the grievance of the petitioner can be adequately addressed before the competent Court by filing an application under Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., now corresponding to Section 175(3) or Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is further submitted that the controversy raised in the present petition already stands settled by the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Misc. Bench No. 24492 of 2020 (Waseem Haider vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home & Others) decided on 14.12.2020 as well as by this Court in WPCR No. 333 of 2020 (Akhilesh Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) decided on 12.04.2023, wherein similar petitions were dismissed. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present 6 petition also deserves to be dismissed on the same grounds.
11. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the nature of relief sought in the present petition, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available before the competent Court under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before the competent Court/forum, in accordance with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan