[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Vishwas Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

2026:CGHC:14260-DB
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPCR No. 159 of 2026

1. Vishwas Gupta S/o Ashok Gupta Aged About 42 Years R/o-
Sanichri Bazaar Durg Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.)
2. Manish Sharma S/o Late Ratan Sharma Aged About 52 Years R/o
Near Vijay Daal Mill, Shivpara Durg Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.)
3. Sajal Jain S/o Devendra Kumar Jain Aged About 40 Years R/o Jai
Anand Parisar, Jain Gali Durg Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.)
4. Smt. Amrita Khandelwal W/o Sachin Khandelwal Aged About 50
Years R/o A/30, Khandelwal Colony, Durg Tehsil And District- Durg
(C.G.)
5. Kamla Devi Bothra (Dead) W/o Moolchand Bothra Aged About 80
Years At Present Through Kanti Lal Bothra Aged About 57 Years,
S/o- Moolchand Bothra R/o- 9/16, Rishabh Nagar, Durg Tehsil And
District Durg (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police
Station City Kotwali Durg Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.)
2. Padam Jain S/o Late Kastur Jain Aged About 74 Years R/o Arihant
Heights, Flat No. A Block/ 404, Khandelwal Colony, Durg Tehsil
And District Durg (C.G.)
3. Smt. Renu Devi Jain W/o Padam Jain Aged About 72 Years R/o
Arihant Heights, Flat No. A Block/ 404, Khandelwal Colony, Durg
Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.)
Digitally
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE Date:
2026.03.25
18:36:07
+0530
2

4. Smt. Rupali Jain W/o Pranay Kumar Jain Aged About 40 Years
R/o- Arihant Heights, Khandelwal Colony, Durg Tehsil And District-
Durg (C.G.)
5. Smt. Arti Jain W/o Ritesh Jain Aged About 47 Years R/o Jain Gali,
Jai Anand Parisar, Ward No. 32, R/o Arihant Heights, Flat No. A
Block/ 404, Khandelwal Colony, Durg Tehsil And District Durg
(C.G.)
6. Rupesh Jain S/o Tejpal Jain Aged About 52 Years R/o Jayanand
Parisar, Jain Gali Durg, District Durg (C.G.)
...Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

25.03.2026

1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General,

appearing for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the

following prayers:

"10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

call for the entire records of the MJC Criminal Case

No. 80 of 2026 from the learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

10.2 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the

order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in

MJC Criminal Case No. 80 of 2026 as mentioned in

the complaint.

10.3 Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble

Court. Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems

fit and proper under the facts and circumstances, may

also be provided to the petitioners."

3. Learned State counsel submits that in compliance of the order

dated 23.03.2026 passed by this Court, the Director General of Police,

Chhattisgarh, Raipur has filed his personal affidavit on 24.03.2026.

4. The relevant portion of the aforesaid affidavit reads as under:

"4. That, in compliance of the Hon'ble Court's order

dated 23.03.2026, the deponent most humbly and

respectfully submits as under:-

a. That, he is a law abiding person and holds the

highest regards and great respect for the lawful

authority of this Hon'ble Court and its orders and

directions issued from time to time.

b. That, adhering to the directions contained in the

order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg in MJC

Criminal Case No. 80/2026, an FIR bearing Crime

No. 0151/2026 punishable under Section 318(4)

and 3 (5) of the B.N.S, 2023 has immediately been

registered at P.S. Kotwali, Durg District Durg (CG.)

against the petitioners and one Rupesh Jain (non

applicant no. 1 herein) on 23.03.2026. To

demonstrate this fact, copy of the FIR No.

0151/2026 dated 23.03.2026 is being filed

herewith as Annexure A/1.

c. That, the deponent respectfully submits that to

comply with the order dated 23/03/2026 passed by

the Hon'ble Court, the deponent has immediately

acted upon the letter dated 23/03/2026 of the

office of the Advocate General, Bilaspur and in

furtherance of the same, vide letter dated

23/03/2026 the Senior Superintendent of Police,

District Durg has been directed to seek

explanation from the Investigation Officer/ Station

House Officer, P.S. Kotwali as to why the FIR

pursuant to the order dated 07.03.2026 passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Durg

has not been registered. To demonstrate this fact,

copy of the letter dated 23.03.2026 is being filed

herewith as Annexure A/2.

d. That, the deponent respectfully submits that

acting upon the direction contained in the

aforesaid letter dated 23.03.2026 of PHQ, Raipur

(Annexure A/2), explanation has been sought from

the Inspector Navin Rajput, Station House Officer,

PS Kotwali Durg vide letter dated 23.03.2026 and

to demonstrate this fact, copy of the letter dated

23.03.2026 is being filed herewith as Annexure

A/3. The explanation has been submitted by the

Inspector Navin Rajput, SHO, City Kotwali Durg on

23.03.2026. Copy of the explanation dated

23.03.2026 is being filed herewith as Annexure

A/4.

e. That, the deponent respectfully submits that the

explanation given by the Inspector Navin Rajput,

SHO, City Kotwali Durg was duly considered by

the Inspector General of Police and Senior

Superintendent of Police, Durg and the same was

found unsatisfactory and taking into consideration

the dereliction of duty on the part of the said police

official as pursuant to the order/direction issued by

the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg,

the offence against the petitioners ought to have

been registered immediately which the said police

official has failed to do so, the Senior

Superintendent of Police, Durg vide order dated

23.03.2026, has imposed punishment upon him.

To demonstrate this fact, copy of the order dated

23.03.2026 is being filed herewith as Annexure

A/5. However, looking to the gravity of

misconduct / dereliction of duty on the part of the

Inspector Navin Rajput, SHO, City Kotwali Durg,

the punishment imposed upon him is found to be

inadequate and therefore, the Inspector General of

Police, Durg Range has again been directed to

review /re-consider the order of SSP. Durg by

considering the misconduct committed by the said

police official. To demonstrate this fact, copy of the

letter dated 24.03.2026 is being filed herewith as

Annexure A/6.

f. It is respectfully submitted that the deponent is a

law abiding person and duty bound to adhere to

and abide by the orders of the Hon'ble Court."

5. From perusal of the said affidavit, it transpires that in compliance

with the order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Durg, an FIR bearing Crime No. 0151/2026 has

been registered at Police Station Kotwali, Durg on 23.03.2026 against

the petitioners and one Rupesh Jain for the offences punishable under

Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

6. It is further evident that the competent authorities have taken

cognizance of the delay in registration of the FIR and an explanation

was sought from Inspector Navin Rajput, Station House Officer (SHO),

Police Station Kotwali, Durg. Upon due consideration, the explanation

furnished by the said officer was found unsatisfactory by the Inspector

General of Police as well as the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg.

Consequently, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg, vide order

dated 23.03.2026, imposed punishment upon him. However,

considering the gravity of misconduct and dereliction of duty on the part

of the said officer, the punishment so imposed appears to be

inadequate. Accordingly, the Inspector General of Police, Durg Range

has been directed to review/reconsider the order passed by the Senior

Superintendent of Police, Durg, taking into account the nature and

seriousness of the misconduct.

7. In view of the subsequent developments and compliance reported

in the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to

withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedy, if

so advised.

8. Prayer is allowed.

9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed as

withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

10. Certified copies of the order-sheet along with order dated

07.03.2026 and other documents, if any, shall be returned to the

petitioners after retaining photocopies thereof for record.

11. However, the Inspector General of Police, Durg Range is directed

to file a personal affidavit indicating the outcome of the review of the

disciplinary proceedings initiated against Inspector Navin Rajput, SHO,

Police Station City Kotwali, Durg. The said affidavit shall be filed before

the Registrar General of this Court, who shall place the same before us

in Chamber, for perusal, within a period of four weeks from today.

12. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to forward a copy of this order

to the Inspector General of Police, Durg Range for information and

necessary compliance.

13. Certified copy, as per rules.

                             Sd/-                                     Sd/-
                  (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                       (Ramesh Sinha)
                           Judge                                  Chief Justice




Brijmohan