1 2026:CGHC:7261-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 58 of 2026 Niharika Lahre W/o Harsh Tandon Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Dhabadih, Police Station- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 3 - Inspector General Of Police Range Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintendent Of Police District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - State House Officer Police Station- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 6 - Station House Officer Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Harsh Tandon S/o Hulas Kumar Tandon Aged About 30 Years R/o Nariyara, Police Station- Mulmula, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Presently R/o Duplex No. 61, Higna Town, Nagpura, Police Station- Hingna, District- Nagpur, (M.H.) 8 - Hulas Kumar S/o Lakhan Lal Tandon Aged About 62 Years R/o Nariyara, Police Station- Mulmula, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Presently R/o Duplex No. 61, Higna Town, Nagpura, Police Station- Hingna, District- Nagpur, (M.H.) 9 - Smt. Meena Tandon W/o Hulas Kumar Tandon Aged About 56 Years R/o Nariyara, Police Station- Mulmula, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.02.10 16:58:25 +0530 2 Presently R/o Duplex No. 61, Higna Town, Nagpura, Police Station- Hingna, District- Nagpur, (M.H.) 10 - Meeti Tandon S/o Hulas Kumar Tandon Aged About 25 Years R/o Nariyara, Police Station- Mulmula, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Presently R/o Duplex No. 61, Higna Town, Nagpura, Police Station- Hingna, District- Nagpur, (M.H.) 11 - Smt. Kamta Kosriya W/o Radhelal Kosriya Aged About 55 Years R/o Geetanjali City Phase I, Bahtarai Road, Sarkanda, Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Pratibha Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 6/State : Mr.Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10/02/2026 1. Heard Ms.Pratibha Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 6/State. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): “10.1. That, the Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct to the respondent authority to produce the entire records of First Information Report bearing Crime No. 553/2025 3 registered at Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa dated 23.11.2025, including the legality of the investigation and filing of charge-sheet pertaining to the case of the present petitioners. 10.2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to directa fair, impartial and lawful investigation, preferably by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or by an independent agency; 10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus for the re- investigation/ de nevo investigation of the Crime No.553/2025 Police Station Pamgarh, District to different police Janjgir-Champa dated 23.11.2025 authority. 10.4. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct re-recording of the Petitioner's statement through a woman police officer and recording of her magisterial statement; 10.5. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant protection to the Petitioner and her family members from threats and intimidation; 10.6 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs as may deem appropriate by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of 4 justice and public welfare.” 3. The present writ petition is preferred by the Petitioner, wife of the accused, seeking appropriate directions against the respondent police authorities for failure to discharge their statutory duties in connection with Crime No. 553/2025, registered at Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that despite disclosure of serious cognizable offences, including sexual violence and forced unnatural acts allegedly committed by her husband, the police authorities refused to record her complaint and statement in accordance with law, denied medical examination, and deliberately omitted material allegations. A charge-sheet was thereafter filed within an unduly short period, without recording her complete statement or her magisterial statement, rendering the investigation unfair and illegal. 5. The Petitioner further submits that repeated representations made to senior police authorities, including the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur and the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir- Champa, were not acted upon. A subsequent complaint disclosing cognizable offences was illegally registered as a Non-Cognizable Report. 6. It is further submitted that Criminal Case No. 1604/2025, arising out of the said defective charge-sheet, is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, DistrictJanjgir- 5 Champa, Chhattisgarh and is fixed for arguments on charge on 07.03.2026, causing serious and irreparable prejudice to the Petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the action and inaction on the part of the respondent police authorities are ex facie illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory, and have resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice. It is contended that despite clear disclosure of multiple cognizable offences, including serious sexual violence and forced unnatural acts, the police authorities deliberately failed to register a proper FIR and consciously suppressed material allegations, in blatant violation of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, wherein it has been categorically held that registration of an FIR is mandatory upon disclosure of a cognizable offence and that the police have no discretion to dilute, filter, or evaluate the allegations at the threshold. It is further submitted that refusal to record the Petitioner’s statement as narrated by her, particularly with regard to allegations of sexual violence, and the manipulation of her statement under Section 161 CrPC / 180 BNSS, coupled with the failure to produce her before the learned Magistrate for recording of her statement under Section 164 CrPC / 183 BNSS, amounts to denial of a fair and impartial investigation, which is an integral facet of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on the 6 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254, wherein it has been held that fair investigation is as much a constitutional mandate as a fair trial. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the deliberate omission of allegations relating to forced unnatural sexual acts and the conscious failure to conduct the Petitioner’s medical examination, despite her specific disclosures, has resulted in destruction and suppression of vital medical and forensic evidence, thereby vitiating the entire investigation. It is argued that the filing of the charge-sheet within an unduly short period of merely ten days from the registration of the FIR, without recording the Petitioner’s complete statement, without her magisterial examination, and without collection of essential corroborative evidence, clearly demonstrates a predetermined, perfunctory, and sham investigation undertaken to shield the accused persons. It is also submitted that the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa, failed to exercise statutory supervisory jurisdiction despite receipt of the Petitioner’s detailed complaint dated 04.12.2025, thereby abdicating official responsibility and perpetuating illegality. Learned counsel further submits that the subsequent act of registering the Petitioner’s complaint disclosing cognizable sexual offences as a nNon-Cognizable Report is per se illegal and contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. Learned counsel emphasizes that the continued threats, intimidation, coercion, and blackmail by the accused persons during pendency 7 of proceedings, coupled with repeated police inaction on multiple FIRs and complaints, have created a climate of fear and helplessness, directly infringing the Petitioner’s right to life, dignity, bodily integrity, and access to justice under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. On these grounds, it is submitted that the investigation stands irreversibly tainted, unconstitutional, and liable to be set aside, warranting immediate intervention of this Court to protect the Petitioner’s fundamental rights and to ensure a fair, impartial, and lawful investigation. 9. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 6/State Counsel, opposing the writ petition, submits that the petition is misconceived, premature, and devoid of merit, and does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the respondent police authorities have acted strictly in accordance with law and that there has been no illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fide in the conduct of investigation. Learned State Counsel submits that upon receipt of the complaint, Crime No.553/2025 was duly registered at Police Station Pamgarh for the offences disclosed therein, and investigation was conducted in a fair, impartial, and lawful manner. It is submitted that the statement of the Petitioner was recorded during the course of investigation and the charge- sheet was filed before the competent court within the statutory period, after collecting the available evidence. The mere fact that 8 the charge-sheet was filed expeditiously cannot, by itself, be construed as proof of a sham or tainted investigation. It is further submitted that the scope and manner of investigation, including the appreciation of statements and collection of evidence, fall within the exclusive domain of the investigating agency, and this Court ought not to interfere at an interlocutory stage unless exceptional circumstances are made out. Learned State Counsel submits that allegations of suppression or manipulation of statements are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and are matters to be tested during trial. It is submitted that the allegations regarding non-conduct of medical examination and omission of certain facts in the statement do not ipso facto vitiate the entire investigation, particularly when the prosecution case is supported by other material collected during investigation. Learned State Counsel submits that the investigating agency has acted bonafide and in accordance with law, and there is no material on record to suggest deliberate shielding of the accused/private respondents. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned State Counsel prays that the writ petition being devoid of merit and involving disputed questions of fact, be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings as well as the documents placed on record. 9 11. The principal grievance of the Petitioner pertains to the manner of investigation conducted in Crime No. 553/2025, including alleged non-recording of certain allegations, non-conduct of medical examination, and filing of the charge-sheet within a short span of time. The Petitioner, in essence, seeks this Court’s interference with the investigation and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh. 12. At the outset, it is well settled that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, particularly in matters relating to investigation of criminal offences. Interference is warranted only where the Court is satisfied that the investigation is demonstrably tainted by mala fides, patent illegality, or a complete violation of statutory or constitutional safeguards. 13. In the present case, it is not in dispute that an FIR bearing Crime No. 553/2025 was registered by the respondent police authorities and that investigation was undertaken pursuant thereto. The statement of the Petitioner was recorded during investigation and a charge-sheet has been filed before the competent court within the statutory period. The mere fact that the charge-sheet was filed expeditiously cannot, by itself, lead to an inference that the investigation was perfunctory, predetermined, or sham. 14. The allegations regarding omission of certain facts from the 10 Petitioner’s statement, non-conduct of medical examination, and suppression of material allegations are seriously disputed questions of fact. Such issues necessarily require appreciation of evidence and factual adjudication, which fall squarely within the domain of the trial court. It is trite law that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The Petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under the Code of Criminal Procedure / BNSS, including the right to raise all permissible objections at the stage of consideration of charge, to seek further investigation in accordance with law, or to agitate her grievances during trial. The pendency of Criminal Case No. 1604/2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class further persuades this Court to exercise judicial restraint. 15. While the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the Petitioner lay down salutary principles relating to mandatory registration of FIRs and the requirement of a fair investigation, the said principles do not mandate interference in every case where allegations of defective investigation are made, particularly when the investigation has culminated in a charge-sheet and the matter is sub-judice before the criminal court. 16. In the absence of any cogent material demonstrating manifest arbitrariness, mala fides, or a complete miscarriage of justice warranting exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation or the criminal 11 proceedings at this stage. 17. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Bablu 12