1 2026:CGHC:22559 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3269 of 2023 Smt. Nanki Sao W/o Arun Sao, Aged About 35 Years R/o Teuram Nagar, Lal Bagicha Ward, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Chairperson, Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Caste Commission, Old Public Service Commission Building, Block- C, Shahid Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattis- garh 3 - The Superintendent Of Police, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattis- garh. 4 - Smt. Sushila Devi W/o Late Dilip Kumar Sao, R/o Makeshwar Ward, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 5 - Arun Sao S/o Late Dilip Sao, Aged About 40 Years R/o Makeshwar Ward, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, P.L. For Respondents No.4 & 5 : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.05.14 10:18:02 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 13.05.2026 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner assails the recommendation dated 19.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.2, whereby, on the basis of a complaint submitted by respondent No.4, recommendation has been made to respondent No.3 for taking action against the petitioner under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘Act of 1989’). The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned recommendation dated 19.06.2023 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.5 and daughter-in-law of respondent No.4. It is submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.5 was solemnized on 07.07.2008 3 and out of their wedlock two children were born. Learned counsel submits that due to matrimonial discord and domestic disputes between the petitioner and her husband, relations between the parties became strained and several complaints were made by both sides before the police authorities, which were treated as disputes of domestic nature. 3. It is further submitted that respondent No.4 belongs to Scheduled Caste community, whereas the petitioner belongs to Sahu caste. According to learned counsel, the present dispute has arisen solely on account of family and matrimonial discord between the petitioner, respondent No.4 and respondent No.5. It is submitted that respondent No.5 has allegedly developed illicit relationship with another woman and thereafter the petitioner was ousted from her matrimonial house. Since the petitioner and her minor daughter were not being maintained by respondent No.5, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were initiated by the petitioner before the Family Court and respondent No.5 has also filed a divorce petition against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter respondent No.4 lodged a complaint before respondent No.2 alleging commission of offences under the provisions of the Act of 1989. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted her detailed reply denying all allegations and specifically contended that she had never abused respondent No.4 in the name of caste and that the complaint was 4 motivated and instituted only to pressurize the petitioner in the ongoing matrimonial dispute. It is submitted that the petitioner had also produced relevant documents and mobile chat records before the authority concerned. 5. Learned counsel submits that despite the dispute being purely matrimonial and domestic in nature, respondent No.2, after recording statements of the parties, passed the impugned recommendation dated 19.06.2023 recommending action against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 1989. It is contended that the impugned recommendation has been issued without proper appreciation of facts and merely on account of personal and family disputes between the parties, and therefore, the same is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the impugned recommendation dated 19.06.2023 has been passed by respondent No.2 i.e. Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Caste Commission, Raipur, after conducting due enquiry and recording statements of the concerned parties. It is submitted that the State has been arrayed only as a formal party in the present proceedings and no specific relief has been sought against the State authorities. Learned State counsel further submits that the principal grievance of the petitioner is against respondent No.2 and the recommendation issued by it and, therefore, the 5 concerned Commission is competent to justify and defend its action before this Court. It is further submitted that since there are disputed questions of fact arising out of personal and matrimonial disputes between the parties, the same cannot appropriately be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Upon consideration of the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it appears that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents No.4 and 5 admittedly emanates from matrimonial and domestic discord between the family members. The material placed on record reflects that various disputes are pending between the parties before different forums, including proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as matrimonial proceedings before the competent Family Court. It also appears that complaints and counter complaints have been lodged by the parties against each other arising out of their strained personal relationship. 9. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the recommendation dated 19.06.2023 issued by respondent No.2 i.e. Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Caste Commission, Raipur. The State Commission is a statutory body constituted for safeguarding the rights and interests of members belonging to Scheduled 6 Castes and is empowered to conduct enquiry into complaints received by it. From perusal of the impugned recommendation, it is evident that the Commission has proceeded to conduct enquiry on the complaint submitted by respondent No.4, recorded statements of the parties and other persons concerned and thereafter made recommendation for taking appropriate action under the provisions of the Act of 1989. 10. At this stage, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot undertake a detailed enquiry into disputed questions of fact relating to the matrimonial dispute between the parties or examine the correctness and veracity of the allegations levelled by either side. Whether the complaint lodged by respondent No.4 is genuine or motivated and whether any offence under the provisions of the Act of 1989 is made out are matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the competent authority under the statutory framework and are required to be examined in accordance with law on the basis of evidence and material available on record. 11. It is also significant to note that the impugned communication issued by respondent No.2 is merely recommendatory in nature and does not finally adjudicate or determine the rights and liabilities of the parties. No adverse civil or criminal consequence has directly ensued against the petitioner solely on the basis of the recommendation made by the State Commission. Interference 7 by this Court at this premature stage, particularly in a matter involving disputed factual issues arising out of family disputes, would not be warranted in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the recommendation dated 19.06.2023 issued by respondent No.2/Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Caste Commission, Raipur. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy/remedies available to her under the law, if so advised. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh