1 2026:CGHC:24169 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4439 of 2021 1. Santosh Das W/o Shri Kartik Das Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Chiknipani Tehsil Kartala, District -Korba. Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur. Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh 3. The Sub Divisional Officer Korba District Korba District Korba (CG) 4. Chhattisgarh State Women Commission, Beside Office Of Chief Election Commission Shashtri Chowk Raipur (CG) 5. Sanhmati Panika W/o Shri Budhwar Das Aged About 70 Years W/o Shri Kartik Das, R/o Village Chiknipani, Tehsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Nitesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Akhilesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.06.18 18:57:33 +0530 2 SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 16.06.2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order dated 19.8.2021 passed by respondent No.4- Chhattisgarh State Women Commission directing for registration of FIR against the petitioner, if he fails to make payment of Rs.3,00,000/- to respondent No.5 or execute sale deed in her favour. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner has purchased the land bearing Khasra No.215 area 0.78 acre situated in village Chiknipaani Tahsil Kartala District Korba from respondent No.5 through registered sale deed dated 16.3.2018. Cheque of Rs.50,000/- was given to respondent No.5 as consideration of sale. Respondent No.5 did not present cheque for encashment despite repeated requests of petitioner and instead submitted a complaint before respondent No.4 alleging that she is not aware of execution of sale deed in favour of petitioner in respect of her land; the same had been got executed fraudulently by petitioner from her by practicing fraud without paying any amount of consideration. On receipt of such complaint, respondent No.4 registered the complaint; called for report from the Superintendent of Police Korba and thereafter vide order impugned directed that if petitioner fails to make payment of 3 Rs.3,00,000/- or execute sale deed in her favour, FIR be registered against him. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that functions of respondent No.4-Commission are specified in Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 (henceforth ‘the Adhiniyam, 1995’), according to which, respondent No.4-Commission may receive complaints in relation to the matters specified therein and on receipt of such complaints take up the matter with the authorities concerned for appropriate remedial measures. The Adhiniyam, 1995 has not entrusted respondent No.4-Commission with the power to take up the role of a court or an adjudicatory tribunal and determine rights of the parties. However, in this case, respondent No.4, by passing the order impugned, has directed the police to register FIR against petitioner in case petitioner fails to make payment to respondent No.4 or execute sale deed in her favour. Thus, it is clear that respondent No.4-Commission has acted as an adjudicatory authority and issued directions vide impugned order, which is not permissible. Action of respondent No.4 in issuing impugned directions is without jurisdiction and authority which requires interference by this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4- Commission would oppose submissions of learned counsel 4 for petitioner and submit that the directions contained in the order passed by respondent No.4 are in the nature of recommendation with intent to redress grievance of respondent No.5. He submits that though the expression ‘register FIR’ has been used by respondent No.4, it has to be treated as a recommendation to the authority concerned for taking action in accordance with law for redressal of grievance of respondent No.5 and not as a binding judicial mandate. Referring to Section 10 (3) of the Adhiniyam, 1995, he submits that respondent No.4 has been conferred with all the powers of a civil Court trying a suit. Thus, once a power has been given to respondent No.4-Commission to receive complaints including the matter concerning deprivation of women of their rights, it is implied that the State Commission is authorized to decide these complaints. In present case also, on receipt of complaint, respondent No.4 after due enquiry, affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and after application of mind arrived at conclusion that right to property of respondent No.5, granted by the Constitution, has been arbitrarily infringed and therefore, issued directions. Hence, no interference is called for. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available in record of writ petition. 5 6. Respondent No.4-Commission is constituted under Section 3 of the Adhiniyam, 1995. The functions of the Commission, are spelt out in Section 10, which reads as follows :- “10. Functions of the Commission.-(1) The Commission shall be perform all or any of the following functions, namely:- (a) investigate and examine all matters relating to the safeguards provided for women under the Constitution and other laws; (b) present to the State Government, annually and at such other times as the Commission may deem fit, reports upon the working of those safeguards; (c) take up the cases of violation of the provisions of the Constitution and of other laws relating to women with the Co appropriate authorities; (d) participate and advise on the planning process of socio-economic development of women; (e) fund litigation involving issues affecting a large body of women; (f) make in-depth studies on- (i) the economic, educational and health situation of the women of the State with particular emphasis on the tribal districts and areas which are underdeveloped with respect to women's literacy, mortality and economic development; (ii) conditions in which women work in factories, establishments, construction sites and other similar situations, and recommend to the State Government on the basis of specific reports for improving the status of women in the said areas; (g) compile information, from time to time, on instances of all offences against women in the State, or in selected areas, including cases 6 related to marriage and dowry, rape, kidnapping, abduction, eveteasing, immoral trafficking in women and cases of medical negligence in causing delivery or sterilisation or medical intervention that relates to child bearing or child birth, (h) co-ordinate with the State Cell and District Cells for atrocities against women, if any, for mobilisation of public opinion in the State as a whole or in specific areas which would help in speedy reporting and detection of offences of such atrocities and mobilisation of public opinion against the offenders; (i) receive complaints on- (i) atrocities on women and offences against women; (ii) deprivation of women of their rights relating to minimum wages, basic health and maternity rights; (iii) non-compliance of policy decisions of the State Government relating to women; (iv) rehabilitation of deserted and destitute women and women forced into prostitution; (v) atrocities on women in custody; and take up with authorities concerned appropriate remedial measures. (j) assist, train and orient the non- Government organisations in the State in legal counselling of poor women and enabling such women to get legal aid; (k) inspect or cause to be inspected a jail, remand home, women's institutions or other places of custody where women are kept as prisoners or otherwise and take up with the concerned authorities for remedial action, if found necessary ; 7 (l) perform functions relating to any other matter which may be referred to it by the State Government. (2) The State Government shall cause all the recommendations or reports, as may be presented to it by the Commission under sub-section (1), to be laid before the Legislature of the State alongwith a memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the recommendations of the Commission and the reasons for the non-acceptance, if any, of any of the such recommendations. (3) The Commission shall while investigating any matter referred to in clause (f) or (i) of sub-section (1) have all the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit and in particular in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court or office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents; and (f) any other matter which may be prescribed.” 7. A careful reading of the above provision of the Adhiniyam, 1995 makes it clear that respondent No.4-Commission is conferred with the power to investigate and examine all 8 matters relating to safeguard provided for women under the Constitution and other Laws; make in-depth studies, receive complaints as provided under Section 10 (1) (I) and while investigating any matter for the purposes of the Adhiniyam, have all the powers of a Civil Court under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in trying a suit and in particular, in respect of the matters specified as per clauses (f) or (i) therein and not for other purposes. The provisions of Section 10 of the Adhiniyam, 1995 would not remotely indicate conferring power of adjudication or determination of rights or to function like Court or Tribunal on the Commission. 8. In case of Bhabani Prasad Jena Vs. Orissa State Commission For Women, (2010) 8 SCC 633, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered extent of power of the State Commission for Women and after analyzing scheme of the Adhiniyam, 1995 has held as follows:- “9. It would be seen from Section 10 of the 1993 Act that the State Commission has been authorized to take up studies in respect of economic, educational and health situation of the women of the State and also the working conditions of women in the factories, establishments, construction sites and make its recommendations to the State Government. The State Commission is empowered to compile information in respect of the offences against women and to coordinate with the State Cell and District Cells for atrocities against women. 9 Further, the State Commission is competent to receive complaints in respect of the matters specified in Section 10(1)(d) and take up the grievances raised in the complaint/s with the concerned authorities for appropriate remedial measures. The State Commission is also given role of assisting, training and orienting the non- Government organizations in the State in legal counselling of poor women and enabling such women to get legal aid. Under Clause (f) of Section 10(1), the State Commission is authorized to inspect or cause to be inspected, a jail, remand home, women's institution or other place of custody where women are kept as prisoners or otherwise and take up with the concerned authorities these matters for remedial action. 10. In other words, the State Commission is broadly assigned to take up studies on issues of economic, educational and healthcare that may help in overall development of the women of the State; gather statistics concerning offences against women; probe into the complaints relating to atrocities on women, deprivation of women of their rights in respect of minimum wages, basic health, maternity rights, etc. and upon ascertainment of facts take up the matter with the concerned authorities for remedial measures; help women in distress as a friend, philosopher and guide in enforcement of their legal rights. However, no power or authority has been given to the State Commission to adjudicate or determine the rights of the parties. 10 11. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel for Respondent 2 submitted that once a power has been given to the State Commission to receive complaints including the matter concerning deprivation of women of their rights, it is implied that the State Commission is authorised to decide these complaints. We are afraid, no such implied power can be read into Section 10(1)(d) as suggested by the learned counsel. The provision contained in Section 10(1)(d) is expressly clear that the State Commission may receive complaints in relation to the matters specified therein and on receipt of such complaints take up the matter with the authorities concerned for appropriate remedial measures. The 1993 Act has not entrusted the State Commission with the power to take up the role of a court or an adjudicatory tribunal and determine the rights of the parties. The State Commission is not a tribunal discharging the functions of a judicial character or a court." 9. In State Bank of Patiala vs. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin, (2010) 4 SCC 368, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "18. It is evident from the said provisions, that neither the Chief Commissioner nor any Commissioner functioning under the Disabilities Act has power to issue any mandatory or prohibitory injunction or other interim directions. The fact that the Disabilities Act clothes them with certain powers of a civil court for discharge of their functions (which include the power to look into complaints), does not enable them to assume the other powers of a civil 11 court which are not vested in them by the provisions of the Disabilities Act." (emphasis supplied) 10. In case at hand, from the order impugned it can be seen that respondent No.4-Commission, based on assurance/ admission of petitioner that he will pay Rs.3,00,000/- to respondent No.5 or execute sale deed in her favour, issued a direction that if petitioner fails to fulfill his assurance, an offence be registered against him. However, respondent No.4- Commission is not empowered under the Adhiniyam, 1995 to issue any such direction as has been issued in the present case. If respondent No.4, after investigation and examination of the complaint submitted by respondent No.5, was satisfied that allegations levelled by respondent No.5 in her complaint were correct, it may refer the matter to the authority concerned, including the police, for taking appropriate action as per law. Therefore, the order impugned is per se without jurisdiction and hence not sustainable in law. 11. It is true that by virtue of Section 10 (3) of the Adhiniyam, 1995 respondent No.4-Commission has been vested with all the powers of a civil court in carrying out an investigation with regard to the matters relating to safeguards provided for women under the Constitution and other laws as also with regard to the matters relating to deprivation of women's rights. 12 However, there is no power granted to the Commission to pass orders/directions for payment of amount of consideration or registration of FIR etc. on the complaint lodged by a party. These powers are vested in the courts, both civil and criminal. Therefore, the directions issued by respondent No.4 in the impugned order are beyond the scope of its powers and functions. 12. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 19.8.2021 passed by respondent No.4 is hereby set aside. Needless to state that the respondent No.5 will be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to her under the law for redressal of her grievance as raised in the complaint submitted before respondent No.4. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-