Latest news with #RameshSinha
Time of India
31-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
HC junks plea seeking SIT, aid for ‘persecution of tribal Christians'
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by 20 petitioners, primarily from the Tribal Christian community, who alleged systematic communal violence, displacement, and destruction of property against them in villages across Sukma district. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The petitioners sought setting up a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the cases, a commission of inquiry and compensation. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the mentioned reliefs sought under the Act, 1952, could not be directed in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claimed they were subjected to targeted communal violence, including assaults, displacement, destruction of homes and property, sacrilege of religious materials, and threats to their life and liberty for practising Christianity. They alleged that despite repeated oral and written complaints, police and administrative authorities failed to register FIRs, provide protection, conduct fair investigations, or rehabilitate victims. They said that some officials even refused to acknowledge their complaints or rebuked the petitioners for their faith. Sanbha Rumnong and Samuel David, counsels for the petitioners, presented the case. R S Marhas, additional advocate general, appearing for the state, submitted that an FIR was already registered for one of the incidents reported by some petitioners, and the matter was under investigation. The additional advocate general argued that the petition, seeking multiple reliefs, was not maintainable under Article 226 for 'demands'. He added that if the petitioners' grievance was specifically about the non-registration of an FIR concerning an incident on April 24, 2025, they should pursue remedies available under law. He cited the Allahabad High Court's decision in Waseem Haider vs. State of UP (2020), which dismissed a similar petition. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court, after hearing arguments at length, found no grounds to interfere with the petition and dismissed it, granting the petitioners liberty to approach appropriate forums for redressal of their grievances. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of. Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by 20 petitioners, primarily from the Tribal Christian community, who alleged systematic communal violence, displacement, and destruction of property against them in villages across Sukma district. The petitioners sought setting up a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the cases, a commission of inquiry and compensation. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the mentioned reliefs sought under the Act, 1952, could not be directed in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claimed they were subjected to targeted communal violence, including assaults, displacement, destruction of homes and property, sacrilege of religious materials, and threats to their life and liberty for practising Christianity. They alleged that despite repeated oral and written complaints, police and administrative authorities failed to register FIRs, provide protection, conduct fair investigations, or rehabilitate victims. They said that some officials even refused to acknowledge their complaints or rebuked the petitioners for their faith. Sanbha Rumnong and Samuel David, counsels for the petitioners, presented the case. R S Marhas, additional advocate general, appearing for the state, submitted that an FIR was already registered for one of the incidents reported by some petitioners, and the matter was under investigation. The additional advocate general argued that the petition, seeking multiple reliefs, was not maintainable under Article 226 for 'demands'. He added that if the petitioners' grievance was specifically about the non-registration of an FIR concerning an incident on April 24, 2025, they should pursue remedies available under law. He cited the Allahabad High Court's decision in Waseem Haider vs. State of UP (2020), which dismissed a similar petition. The court, after hearing arguments at length, found no grounds to interfere with the petition and dismissed it, granting the petitioners liberty to approach appropriate forums for redressal of their grievances. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
Time of India
31-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh HC junks plea for SIT, compensation & inquiry commission in Sukma violence against tribal Christians
Chhattisgarh HC RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by 20 petitioners, primarily from the Tribal Christian community, who alleged communal violence, displacement, and destruction of property in villages across Sukma district. The petitioners sought various reliefs, including compensation, the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), and a Commission of Inquiry. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the reliefs sought, such as compensation and the constitution of an SIT or Inquiry Commission under the Act, 1952, could not be directed in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claimed they were subjected to targeted communal violence, including assaults, displacement, destruction of homes and property, sacrilege of religious materials, and threats to life and liberty for practising Christianity. They alleged that despite repeated oral and written complaints, police and administrative authorities failed to register First Information Reports (FIRs), provide protection, conduct fair investigations, or rehabilitate victims. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo Some officials reportedly refused to acknowledge complaints or rebuked the petitioners for their faith. Sanbha Rumnong and Samuel David, counsels for the petitioners, presented the case. R S Marhas, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the state, submitted that an FIR was already registered for one of the incidents reported by some petitioners, and the matter was under investigation. The Additional Advocate General argued that the petition, seeking multiple reliefs, was not maintainable under Article 226 for demands such as compensation or the formation of an SIT or Inquiry Commission. He added that if the petitioners' grievance was specifically about the non-registration of an FIR concerning an incident on April 24, 2025, they should pursue remedies available under law, such as filing an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC before the concerned court. He cited the Allahabad High Court's decision in Waseem Haider vs. State of UP (2020), which dismissed a similar petition. The court, after hearing arguments at length, found no grounds to interfere with the petition and dismissed it, granting the petitioners liberty to approach appropriate forums for redressal of their grievances. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
News18
31-05-2025
- Politics
- News18
Chhattisgarh HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Professors Accused Of Forcing Namaz At NSS Camp
Last Updated: An FIR was lodged by three students who alleged that during the National Service Scheme camp in Kota, they were compelled to offer Namaz despite being adherents of the Hindu faith The Chhattisgarh High Court recently dismissed two petitions filed by assistant professors of Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur, seeking quashing of an FIR accusing them of coercing Hindu students to offer Namaz during a university-run National Service Scheme (NSS) camp. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey refused to interfere with the investigation at this stage, observing that the matter is still under probe and a charge sheet is yet to be filed. An FIR was lodged by three students—Astik Sahu, Adarsh Kumar Chaturvedi, and Naveen Kumar—who alleged that during the National Service Scheme (NSS) camp held at Shivtarai, Kota, between March 26 and April 1, they were compelled to offer Namaz despite being adherents of the Hindu faith. The FIR was registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 190, 196, 197, 299, and 302, along with Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968. Dilip Jha, the NSS camp coordinator, and several other university faculty members were named as accused in the case. They contended that the FIR was politically motivated, pointing to a two-week delay in filing the complaint and highlighting that only three out of over 150 participating students had raised such allegations. They further argued that a few Muslim students had voluntarily offered Namaz and there was no coercion on any participant. Despite these arguments, the State opposed the petitions, stating that the investigation had already unearthed prima facie evidence and that witness statements backed the allegations. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021), the bench emphasised that courts should rarely quash FIRs at an initial stage unless the complaint is patently frivolous or lacks even basic ingredients of a criminal offence. 'The petitioners are already on bail, the investigation is going on and the charge sheet has not been filed yet, therefore, it would not be appropriate to make any observations on the merits of the case," the bench observed, dismissing both petitions. First Published:
Indian Express
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Chhattisgarh High Court refuses to quash FIR against professors who ‘asked students to offer namaz'
The Chhattisgarh High Court in a recent order dismissed two petitions seeking quashing of an FIR registered by Kota police in April this year against professors of Guru Ghasidas Central University in Chhattisgarh's Bilaspur district for purportedly asking 155 students to offer namaz on Eid during a National Service Scheme (NSS) camp. The High Court cited a Supreme Court ruling from 2021, which said courts should not thwart any investigation into cognisable offences and not scuttle criminal proceedings at the initial stage, and that the power to quash proceedings should be exercised sparingly. 'When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 CrPC, only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR,' the High Court observed. One petition seeking quashing of the FIR was filed by the coordinator for the NSS camp, Professor Dilip Jha, who was arrested in the case and was granted bail. The second petition was filed by six assistant professors, who were also named as accused in the case. As per the FIR, the students had gone to Shivtarai village in March this year as part of the NSS camp, and on the day of Eid, non-Muslims students were also purportedly asked to offer namaz along with the Muslim students. The petitioners deny that any student was forced to offer namaz. The counsel for the professors argued that the complaint by students was lodged on April 14, after a delay of 14-15 days, and that the complaint was 'politically motivated'. Even though 150 students participated in the camp, only three lodged the FIR, the petitioners argued. 'The participants were not compelled by the petitioners to offer namaz, and on a false accusation, the police registered the offence,' the counsel argued. On the other hand, the counsel for the state argued, 'The petitioners, by using words and visible representations, compelled the complainants, who belong to the Hindu religion, to offer namaz.' Chhattisgarh High Court Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey dismissed the petition, pointing out that the petitioners are already out on bail, investigations are ongoing, and observations cannot be made on the merits of the case.
Time of India
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh HC refuses to quash FIR against professors accused of forcing Hindu students to offer Namaz
RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed petitions filed by Assistant Professors from Guru Ghasidas (Central) University, seeking to quash an FIR registered against them for allegedly compelling Hindu students to offer Namaz. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey observed that it would be premature to interfere with the investigation at this stage. The petitioners, including Dilip Jha, Coordinator of a National Service Scheme (NSS) camp, and six others including Madhulika Singh, Suryabhan Singh, Dr. Jyoti Verma, Prashant Vaishnav, Basant Kumar, Dr. Niraj Kumar, had moved the High Court to quash FIR No. 417 of 2025, registered at Kota police station, Bilaspur. The FIR invokes Sections 190, 196(1)(b), 197(1)(b), 197(1)(c), 299, and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968. The case stems from a complaint lodged by three students, Astik Sahu, Adarsh Kumar Chaturvedi, and Naveen Kumar, who participated in an NSS camp organised by the university at Shivtarai, Kota, from March 26 to April 1, 2025. The complainants, all Hindu, alleged that the professors compelled them to offer Namaz. Counsel for the petitioners, Awadh Tripathi, argued that the complaint, lodged on April 14, 2025, was delayed by 14-15 days and was politically motivated. He stated that while 150 Hindu students attended the camp, only three lodged the FIR. He also submitted that four Muslim students at the camp offered Namaz, but no compulsion was exerted on Hindu participants. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Mr. Tripathi informed the court that the petitioners have already been granted bail by the trial court. He further contended that the essential ingredients of the sections invoked in the FIR were not made out against the petitioners. Arvind Dubey, government counsel for the State, opposed the petitions, asserting that there are serious allegations against the professors. He argued that the petitioners used words and visible representations to compel Hindu complainants to offer Namaz. The counsel also stated that the investigation is ongoing, and witnesses have supported the allegations, requesting the court to dismiss the petitions. After hearing both parties and reviewing the available records, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2021), which states that courts should not thwart investigations into cognizable offences at an initial stage. The Supreme Court judgment also highlights that quashing an FIR should be an exception rather than a rule and that police must be allowed to complete their investigation. Considering that the petitioners are on bail and the investigation is still underway, the High Court concluded that it would not be appropriate to make any observations on the merits of the case. Consequently, both petitions were dismissed.
