Chattisgarh High Court
Sangya Lal Soloman vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 April, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:17136-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 202 of 2025
Sangya Lal Soloman W/o Aaditya Soloman Aged About 33 Years R/o
Gayatri Girls Hostel, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Superintendent Of Police, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)
3. Station House Officer, Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh (C.G.)
4. Mahila Thana, Station Chowk, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)
5. Rashmi Pathak W/o Umesh Pathak Aged About 58 Years R/o Eden
Garden, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)
6. Nitish Lal S/o Nitin Umesh Lal Aged About 34 Years R/o Eden Garden,
Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)
7. Aatish Pathak S/o Umesh Pathak Aged About 28 Years R/o Eden Garden,
Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)
8. Umesh Pathak Aged About 55 Years R/o Eden Garden, Raigarh, District
Raigarh (C.G.)
9. Pastor Ajay Lal Aged About 63 Years R/o Vishwashgadh Church Of North
India, Raigarh, C.G.
10. Pastor Sumendu Aged About 55 Years R/o Vishwashgadh Church Of
North India, Raigarh, C.G. ---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate
For Respondents-State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
15.04.2025
Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video
conferencing.
1. Heard Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A., for the State-respondents and
perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:-
10.1 That, the Respondent no. 1-4 be
directed to take action against respondent
No. 5 -10 for exercising exorcism upon the
petitioner
10.2. That, the Respondent No. 9 and 10 be
prosecuted for outraging the modesty of the
petitioner.
10.3 That, the Respondent No. 2, 3 & 4 be
directed to register that crime upon the
respondents.
10.4 That, the Respondent No. 1-4 be
directed to ensure the liberty guaranteed
under article 21 of constitution of India.
10.5 That, the petitioner be allowed to live
and stay wherever she wants.
10.6 That, the Hon'ble Court further pleased
to grant such other relief(s) as may be
deemed fit and proper in the interest of
justice and fair play.
3. Brief facts of the case is that, the petitioner is challenging the
arbitrary act of respondent No. 5-8 who are trying to make her
captive and has already taken action of witchcraft therefore
petitioner is very much scared and is being followed by respondent
No. 5-8 wherever she is going and was compelled to leave Raigarh
therefore she is taking shelter of this Hon'ble court for the free
movement and also reserve the free movement of life as
guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the garb of
exorcism respondent No. 9 and 10 have exploited the petitioner
and tried to outrage the modesty, the petitioner was very
uncomfortable and scared but respondent No. 5 to 8 were
supporting the illegal act of respondent No. 9 & 10, therefore, the
petitioner filed complaint before respondent No. 2, 3 & 4. However,
despite complaint has been made, no action has been
taken by the respondents No. 2 to 4.
5. We have perused the prayers and pleadings made in the
writ petition.
6. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that
the grievance of the petitioner can be very well redressed before
the Court below by filing an application under Section 156 (3) or
200 of the Cr.P.C. 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 2023 (Akhilesh Agrawal v. State of
Chhattisgarh & Others) decided on 12.04.2023, dismissing the
said petition, hence, the present petition be also dismissed in terms
of the said order.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with liberty
to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before appropriate
Forum.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Jyoti
