1 2025:CGHC:59637-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 622 of 2025 Smt. Urmila Alias Bhuri Khunte W/o Mohan Lal Khunte Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Sonadah, Police Station - Birra, Tehsil - Bumnihdih, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur - Region, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3.Superintendent Of Police Janjgir, Disrict Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 4. Krishna Pal Singh Presently Posted As S.H.O. P.S. Shivrinarayan, Tehsil - Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 5. Ritu Lahre W/o Pritesh Kumar Lahre Aged About 33 Years Presently Posted As Constable No. 755, Police Station - Shivrinarayan, Tehsil - Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.12.10 10:20:36 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 To allow the instant writ petition and to issue the appropriate writ directing Respondent No.2 or 3 to Re- investigate the case by conducting fair investigation with regard to grievance of the Petitioner as per Complaint dated 10/12/2024 made before Respondent No.2, and 3. 10.2 It is respectfully further prayed to take strict action against Respondent No.4(Krishna Pal Singh) for producing false document and information with regard to the Medical treatment of Victim in Crime No.160/2024 as per the Order dated 10/01/2025 passed by Session Judge, Janjgir, District:Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 10.3 Any other relief which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed. in the interest of justice. 3 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner, was falsely implicated in Crime No. 0160/2024 registered on 09.12.2024 at Police Station Birra, Janjgir-Champa, based on a complaint by Respondent No.5. The FIR names the petitioner, her husband, sons, and daughter-in-law under serious offences. The petitioner filed complaints on 10.12.2024 seeking fair investigation, but was told to take legal recourse. Her anticipatory bail plea was rejected on 27.12.2024 on the basis of allegedly false medical-treatment information about the “victim.” She was arrested on 04.01.2025, later granted regular bail, after which the court found that false information had been supplied by Respondent No.4 and issued a show-cause notice against him. Subsequently, the petitioner’s efforts to install CCTV at her home to prevent illegal activities were obstructed: Respondent No.4 ordered removal of cameras and ignored complaints filed on 30.01.2025 and 08.03.2025. Despite multiple complaints of misconduct against Respondent No.4, no action has been taken. Respondent No.5 also allegedly aided in fabricating evidence and demanded money to remove the petitioner’s name from the FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in Crime No. 0160/2024 registered at Police Station Birra, District Janjgir–Champa (C.G.) on 09.12.2024 on the basis of a complaint lodged by respondent No. 5, for which offences under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 296, and 351(2) of the B.N.S. have been registered. It is further submitted that the petitioner had also filed a counter-complaint, but the police did not register or consider the same. Counsel states that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a 4 fair and impartial investigation. He additionally prays for appropriate action against respondent No. 4, the S.H.O. of Police Station Shivnarayan, Shri Krishna Pal Singh, alleging that he prepared false documents relating to the victim’s treatment. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has alternative remedy to under Section 175 (3) of BNSS for redressal of his grievance. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 7. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable. The core grievance of the petitioner relates to the manner of investigation and the alleged failure of the police authorities to act upon her representations. However, the statute provides a specific and efficacious remedy under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), whereby a person aggrieved by improper or unfair investigation may approach the Magistrate concerned seeking appropriate directions. When such an alternate statutory remedy is available, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is ordinarily not to be invoked. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of H.P. and Others v Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 5 499 held that normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternate remedy. 9. The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 172, reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when a statutory forum is available and has not been availed. 10. In light of the above submission and settled legal position, further, the petitioner has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstance warranting bypassing the statutory remedy. Consequently, in view of the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy under the BNSS, the writ petition is held to be not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy provided under Section 175(3) of the BNSS or any other remedy available to her under law. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti