Chattisgarh High Court
Arvind Patnaik vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 June, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 312 of 2022
Arvind Patnaik S/o Mahaveer Patnaik Aged About 40 Years Working As
Constable No. 485, Police Station Pussore, District Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Ministry Of Home,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District
Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Inspector General of Police Bilaspur Range, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
3. The Superintendent of Police District Raigarh (C.G.)
4. The Collector District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
5. The Station House Officer Police Station Tamnar, District Raigarh
(C.G.)
6. Abhishek Patnaik S/o Mahaveer Patnaik Aged About 30 Years R/o
Tamnar, Police Station And Tahsil Tamnar District Raigarh (C.G.)
7. Xyz Nill
----Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Ms. Meena Shastri, Additional Advocate General
For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
22.06.2022
Heard Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned senior counsel for the
appellant. Also heard Ms. Meena Shastri, learned Additional Advocate
General, appearing for respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr. Goutam Khetrapal,
learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.7 / writ petitioner.
2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 22.04.2022 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (CR) No.369 of 2022.
3. At the very outset, Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned senior counsel for
the appellant submits that the appellant, who was made a party
respondent No.7 in the writ petition, had not been heard as no notice was
issued to him. She further submits that the writ petition was not filed by
the prosecutrix, but was filed by the father of the prosecutrix. It is
submitted by Ms. Singhai that brother of the appellant, who was accused
of committing sexual intercourse with the alleged victim, was acquitted
after a full-fledged trial by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda,
District Raigarh. She submits that there was physical relationship with
the consent of the prosecutrix. It is submitted by her that all these facts
could not be placed before the learned Single Judge as no opportunity of
hearing was granted to the appellant.
4. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel, appearing for the writ
petitioner, however, submits that order of the learned Single Judge need
not be interfered with as no prejudice is caused to the appellant having
regard to the nature of order passed by the learned Single Judge.
5. Ms. Meena Shastri, learned Additional Advocate General,
appearing for respondents No.1 to 5 submits that as no return was filed
by respondents No.1 to 5 in the writ petition, she is refraining from
making any submission in the instant case.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by Ms. Singhai and taking
note of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Johra and
Others v. State of Haryana and Others, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 324,
where the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that no order can be passed
by any Court in any judicial proceeding against any party to such
proceeding without hearing and giving such party an opportunity of
hearing, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case of
either of the parties, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the
learned Single Judge and remand the matter for fresh consideration.
7. Taking that view of the matter, we set aside the order of the learned
Single Judge.
8. Registry is directed to list the writ petition before the learned Single
Judge having roster on 07.07.2022
8. Ms. Singhai submits that name of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned
counsel, may be reflected in the cause-list as counsel for respondent
No.7 in the writ petition when the case is listed before the learned Single
Judge.
9. Registry will take note of the same.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ appeal
stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Anu
