Chattisgarh High Court
Podiyam Sankar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 May, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:22424-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 301 of 2025
1 - Podiyam Sankar S/o Podiyam Singa Aged About 22 Years R/o
Nimalguda, Kista Ram, Konta, District - Sukma (C.G.)
2 - Madvi Joga S/o Madvi Laxmaiya Aged About 37 Years R/o 02,
Nimalguda, Kista Ram, Konta, District - Sukma (C.G.)
3 - Kunjam Bichchhem S/o Kunjam Nanda Aged About 27 Years R/o 45,
Patelpara, Durandarbha, Post Office - Gondpalli, District - Sukma (C.G.)
4 - Kunjam Kamla S/o Kunjam Bichem Aged About 28 Years R/o Silger,
Durandarbha, Tahsil - Silger, District - Sukma (C.G.)
5 - Lekam Kamu S/o Lekam Aytu Aged About 35 Years R/o Silger,
Durandarbha, , Tahsil - Silger, District - Sukma (C.G.)
6 - Lekam Lakki S/o Lekam Aytu Aged About 45 Years R/o Durandarbha,
Post Office - Gondpalli, District - Sukma (C.G.)
7 - Podiyam Mutte W/o Podiyam Singa Aged About 28 Years R/o Nimalguda,
Kista Ram, Konta, District - Sukma (C.G.)
8 - Madvi Krishna S/o Madvi Bojji Aged About 27 Years R/o Nimalguda, Kista
Ram, Konta, District - Sukma (C.G.)
9 - Madvi Nagesh S/o Madvi Muda Aged About 25 Years R/o Nimalguda,
Kista Ram, Konta, District - Sukma (C.G.)
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Digitally signed
by VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Date: 2025.05.29
18:12:42 +0530
2
10 - Madvi Linga S/o Madvi Passe Aged About 38 Years R/o House No.-57,
Nimalguda, Kista Ram, Konta, District - Sukma (C.G.)
11 - Madvi Laxmi W/o Madvi Linga Aged About 34 Years R/o House No.-57,
Nimalguda, Kista Ram, Konta, District - Sukma (C.G.)
12 - Madvi Rame W/o Madvi Joga Aged About 35 Years R/o 02, Nimalguda,
Kista Ram, Konta, District - Sukma (C.G.)
13 - Kadti Laxmi S/o Kadti Mukesh Aged About 45 Years R/o 20, Dhuran
Darbha, Silger, Jagargunda, District - Sukma (C.G.)
14 - Manju Lekham D/o Pandu Lekham Aged About 26 Years R/o House No.-
52, Metta, Hirapur, Basaguda, District - Bijapur (C.G.)
15 - Kadti Hirma S/o Kadti Hiriya Aged About 48 Years R/o Silger,
Dhurandarabha, District - Sukma (C.G.)
16 - Lekham Lachchhu S/o Lekham Budhra Aged About 29 Years R/o 99,
Duran Darbha, Silger, Jagargunda, District - Sukma (C.G.)
17 - Lekam Bhima S/o Lekam Dhruva Aged About 36 Years R/o Madopara,
Durandarbha, Silger, District - Sukma (C.G.)
18 - Muchaki Bhime D/o Muchaki Kosa Aged About 26 Years R/o
Narsapuram, Chintalnar, District - Sukma (C.G.)
19 - Lekam Hungi S/o Lekam Bhima Aged About 39 Years R/o House No.-
201, Madopara, Durandarbha, Silger, District - Sukma (C.G.)
20 - Madvi Aytu S/o Channu Aged About 28 Years R/o 54, Schoolpara,
Kondasavii, Jagargunda, District - Sukma (C.G.)
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur
(C.G.)
3
2 - Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarter, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa
Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Commissioner Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.)
5 - Inspector General Of Police Bastar Range, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar
(C.G.)
6 - Superintendent Of Police Sukma, District - Sukma (C.G.)
7 - Collector Sukma, District - Sukma (C.G.)
8 - Station House Officer Police Station - Jagargunda, Sukma (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Sanbha Rumnong, Advocate and
Mr. Samuel David, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
29/05/2025
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are claiming
themselves from Tribal Christian Community and have been subjected
to target communal violence in villages of District Sukma. Chhattisgarh
including assaults, displacement and destruction of homes and
property, sacrilege of religious materials and threats to life and liberty
for practicing Christianity.
2. According to the petitioners despite repeated oral and written
complaints to the police and administrative authorities, no FIRs were
registered and the State failed to provide protection and also failed to
conduct fair investigation or rehabilitate the victims. The petitioners
would also alleged that some officials even refused to acknowledge
complaints or rebuked petitioners for their faith.
3. The petitioners have filed the present petition with the following
prayer:-
"In view of the facts and circumstances stated
hereinabove, and in the interest of justice, equity, and
protection of fundamental rights, the Petitioners most
respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to:
(1) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the
Respondent authorities to ensure the safety,
security and protection of the Petitioners along
with measures to prevent recurrence of similar
incidents;
(ii) Direct the Respondent State to award fair,
just, and adequate compensation to the
Petitioners for the destruction of residential
property, loss of livelihood, essential
documents, and for the physical, mental, and
emotional trauma inflicted upon them as a result
of the communal violence;
(iii) Direct the Respondents to strictly comply
with the binding guidelines laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Haroon v.
Union of India, Archbishop Raphael Cheenath v.
State of Orissa, State of Karnataka v. Dr.
Praveen Bhai Thogadia and Tehseen S.
Poonawalla v. Union of India, and to file a
detailed compliance affidavit before this Hon'ble
Court outlining the measures undertaken for
rehabilitation, protection, investigation,
prevention, and compensation in cases of
communal violence across the State;
(iv) Constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT)
under the supervision of this Hon'ble Court to
conduct a fair, impartial, and time-bound
investigation into the incidents of communal
violence highlighted in the present petition,
including the incident dated 24/04/2025
(Annexure P/9);
(v) Direct initiation of appropriate criminal and
departmental proceedings against the then
concerned police officers and administrative
authorities for their willful dereliction of duty,
including failure to register FIRs, refusal to
provide protection, and denial of legal remedies
to the Petitioners, and further direct issuance of
standing instructions to all law enforcement
officials across the State to promptly register
FIRs and provide immediate protection in all
future incidents involving communal violence;
(vi) Direct the constitution of a commission of
Inquiry under Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952,
to examine the incidents of violence against
Tribal Christians across the State of
Chhattisgarh and suggest adequate measures
to prevent recurrence of similar incidents;
(vii) Pass any other order(s), direction(s), or
relief(s) as may be deemed just and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice."
4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, on
instructions, would submit that in one of the complaint lodged by some
of the petitioners for an incident, FIR has already been registered and
the matter is under investigation. He would submit that the petitioners
preferred the present petition seeking multiple reliefs. As far as
seeking compensation, constitution of a SIT for the incident dated
24/04/2025 as well as constitution of a Commission of inquiry under
the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 to examine the incident of
violence across the State of Chhattisgarh is concerned, the same is
not maintainable in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. He would also submit that if the petitioners are
raising the grievance in respect of the incident dated 24/04/2025 that
no FIR has been lodged is concerned, the present Writ Petition is not
maintainable as if the petitioners are having any grievance regarding
non-registration of FIR, they would avail the remedy as may be
available to them under the law. Learned counsel would further submit
that the grievance of the petitioners' can be very well redressed before
the concerned Court by filing an application under Section 156 (3)
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 dismissing the said petition, hence, the
present petition be also dismissed in terms of the said order.
5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at
length.
6. The reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the present writ petition
appears to be vague and multiple in nature. In a petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the relief sought for by the petitioners
regarding compensation, constitution of SIT and constitution of Inquiry
Commission under the Act, 1952 cannot be directed. However, as far
as non registration of FIR in respect of the incident dated 24/04/2025,
the Writ petition is not maintainable and if the petitioners are aggrieved
by the inaction on the part of the respondents' authorities with regard
to non-registration of FIR, the petitioners may approach before the
appropriate authorities in the light of the decisions rendered in the
Waseem Haider (Supra)
7. In view of the above, we do not find any good ground to interfere with
present petition, therefore the present petition deserves to be and is
accordingly dismissed, with a liberty to approach the authorities
before the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances, if any.
8. Consequently, all the pending interlocutory applications stand disposed
of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved
