Hitendra Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5048 Chatt

                                  1




                                                                      NAFR
          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        WA No. 417 of 2022
Hitendra Kumar Patel S/o Balram Patel Aged About 26 Years Posted As
Up-Sarpanch At Gram Panchayat Ruhi, R/o Village- Ruhi, Police Station
And Tahsil- Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
                                                               ---- Appellant
                               Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department,
   Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Superintendent Of Police Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
3. Station House Officer Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
4. Ku. Bharati Jangde D/o Rajkumar Jangde Aged About 22 Years
   Posted As Sarpanch In Gram Panchayat Ruhi, R/o Village- Ruhi,
   Police Station- Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
                                                       ----- Respondents

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.: Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, Additional Advocate 1 to 3 General For Respondent No.4: None

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Judgment on Board

05/08/2022

Heard Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the

appellant. Also heard Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, learned Additional

Advocate General, appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3.

2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated

27.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(Cr) No.

516/2022, whereby the writ petition was disposed of observing as

follows:

"3. Considering the fact that cognizable offence is reported, it

is directed that the concerned Police shall register the FIR

pursuant to Annexure P-1 as per the law laid down in Lalita

Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (supra) and

thereafter shall investigate the offence in accordance with

law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any

opinion on the merit of the case, the police is free to enquire

into the matter independently."

3. The respondent No. 4/writ petitioner is the Sarpanch of Gram

Panchayat, Ruhi, who is aged about 22 years and is unmarried,

belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. The appellant is the Up-

Sarpanch of the same Gram Panchayat. A complaint was lodged by the

writ petitioner before the Station House Officer, Patan, stating that the

appellant insulted her by holding her hand and also threatened her. In

view of the complaint lodged by her against the appellant, though a

cognizable offence was made out, as the FIR was not registered, the writ

petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(Cr) No. 516/2022, out of

which the present writ appeal arises.

4. Mr. Pradhan submits that pursuant to passing of the order by

this Court in the writ petition, an FIR came to be registered on

09.07.2022 against the appellant and one Dharmendra Patel for the

offences punishable under Sections 354, 294, 506, 323 and 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1960 (for short, the IPC). It is stated that the

statement of the writ petitioner was recorded under Section 164 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (for short, 'CrPC'). It is also stated that

subsequently, Section 3(1)(w)(1)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act

of 1989) has been added.

5. Mr. Tiwari submits that before passing of the impugned order

by the learned Single Judge, no notice was given to the appellant,

though he was arrayed as party-respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, and

as such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set

aside, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

6. Mr. Pradhan does not make any comments on the above

submission.

7. Though the appellant had not been heard before the impugned

order was passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered

opinion that in the attending facts and circumstances, no prejudice is

caused to the appellant as it was the duty of the respondent No. 3 to

have registered a case when a cognizable offence was reported. The

fact that the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offence is

demonstrated by the fact that, subsequently, FIR has been registered

under Sections 354, 294, 506, 323 and 34 of the IPC as well as Section

3(1)(w)(1)(2) of the Act of 1989.

8. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal and

the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

                 Sd/-                                   Sd/-
       (Arup Kumar Goswami)                     (Parth Prateem Sahu)
           CHIEF JUSTICE                              JUDGE