The Chhattisgarh High Court reiterates that mere issuance of a notice calling for documents from individuals not named in the FIR, absent any indication of coercive action or threat of arrest, does not warrant quashing under writ jurisdiction; appropriate remedies are available in accordance with law. This judgment affirms existing principles and serves as binding authority within the State’s jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPCR/486/2025 of CHHATRAPAL SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010379522025 |
| Date of Registration | 30-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU (concurring) |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the State of Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing law regarding the scope of writ jurisdiction in investigation matters |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Investigatory Process, Writ Jurisdiction) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the High Court can quash a notice seeking documents from persons not named in the FIR, absent any coercive action or imminent threat of arrest. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that a notice merely requesting production of documents by the investigating officer, issued to persons not named in the FIR, does not in itself amount to any actionable apprehension of arrest or coercive action. Such notices do not call for extraordinary interference by way of writ jurisdiction. If an apprehension of arrest arises, legal remedies under regular criminal law remain available. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | No specific previous judgments cited in the order. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The order is based on reading the content of the notice and the legal principle that writ remedies are not available unless there is a real threat of fundamental rights violation. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners challenged notices requiring them to produce academic documents and employment exchange registration, issued during investigation of FIR No. 225/2022 under Sections 420 and 468 IPC. Petitioners were not named in the FIR and apprehended arrest. The department reportedly closed the case. |
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44858-DB |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Not specified |
| Overrules | None indicated |
| Distinguishes | None indicated |
| Follows | Not specified |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that mere notices for document production by the investigating agency do not amount to grounds for writ intervention.
- Clarifies that if and when apprehension of arrest arises, petitioners can seek remedies available under ordinary criminal law (e.g., anticipatory bail).
- Lawyers should not approach writ jurisdiction pre-emptively unless there is demonstrated coercion or violation of rights.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the notices issued, which were mere letters requiring production of documents for investigation purposes.
- Noted that the petitioners were not named in the FIR and no immediate or explicit threat of coercive action existed against them.
- Cited that such requests during the investigation do not warrant extraordinary relief under writ jurisdiction.
- Pointed out that apprehension of arrest, if genuinely arising in consequence, can be addressed through established legal channels (such as anticipatory bail).
- Accordingly, declined to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The notices required the petitioners to produce academic documents and registration with employment exchange during investigation.
- Petitioners not named in the FIR; department had closed their case.
- Apprehension of arrest if they appear before the investigating officer; sought interim protection.
Respondent (State):
- Opposed relief; informed that some accused have already obtained anticipatory bail from the High Court in MCRCA No.1293/2025.
Factual Background
The petitioners, both government employees, were issued notices by the investigating officer in connection with Crime No. 225/2022 under Sections 420 and 468 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur. The notices sought academic documents and employment exchange registration details. Petitioners were not named in the FIR. They approached the High Court by writ petition, fearing possible arrest upon appearing before the investigating officer, even though the department had closed their case.
Statutory Analysis
The Court examined the powers of the investigating officer to call for documents during the investigation of an offence under Sections 420 and 468 IPC. It addressed the scope of writ jurisdiction vis-à-vis investigatory steps that do not involve coercive action or violation of fundamental rights, holding that such procedural steps do not in themselves justify quashing by the High Court under its writ powers.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion; both members of the Division Bench were in agreement.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural guidelines or innovations laid down in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms established principles regarding the non-interference by writ courts in investigatory steps absent coercive action or violation of rights.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44858-DB