THE Chhattisgarh High Court has granted the State one week as a “last indulgence” to obtain instructions from the authorities concerned regarding proceedings initiated pursuant to a woman petitioner’s complaint involving IPS officer Ratanlal Dangi, failing which the concerned Officer-in-Charge will have to appear personally before the Court. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad passed the direction in WPC No. 4141 of 2026 after recording that instructions required from the authorities in terms of an earlier order were still awaited. In legal parlance, “last indulgence” effectively signifies a final opportunity granted by the Court for compliance before the stipulated consequence follows. The Court granted State counsel one week to obtain those instructions. Importantly, the direction regarding an affidavit is conditional. The order stipulates that if instructions are not received within the period granted, the concerned Officer-in-Charge shall remain personally present before the Court on September 29 with a response in writing accompanied by an affidavit. The September 2 direction follows an order passed on August 12, when the Court had directed State counsel to seek instructions “as to why proceedings have been initiated” on the complaint made by the petitioner. Knowledgeable sources in the legal fraternity, familiar with the proceedings, said the latest direction should not be construed as an adjudication of the allegations.

 

At this stage, they explained, the Court has essentially sought compliance with its earlier direction for obtaining instructions from the State authorities, while prescribing the consequence if those instructions remain pending. The writ petition arrays the Union of India, Chhattisgarh Government authorities, Director General of Police, enquiry officers Anand Chhabra and Milna Kurre, besides Dangi, who figures as respondent No. 8. The woman petitioner has levelled allegations of harassment against Dangi and raised grievances over the handling of her complaints by the authorities. The allegations form part of her case and have neither been adjudicated nor recorded as established facts by the High Court. Material accompanying the petition also refers to her seeking investigation into alleged movable and immovable assets attributed to Dangi at various locations within and outside Chhattisgarh. Legal sources, after examining the operative portions of the orders, said neither the August 12 nor September 2 order contains any finding on the property allegations or specifically directs investigation into Dangi’s assets. The judicial directions presently on record remain confined to obtaining the State’s instructions concerning proceedings initiated pursuant to the petitioner’s complaint. The matter will next come up on September 29.