1 2026:CGHC:23933-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 292 of 2026 Smt. Laxmi Sharma Wd/o. Late Mahendra Sharma Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 52, New Adarsh Nagar, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) Presently Resided At C/o Pt. Maliram Shambhu Sharma, Ambapali, Ward No. 17, District- Bargarh (Odisha) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station - Somni, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Surendra Sharma S/o Late Lakhiram Sharma Aged About 69 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, Kasaridih, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Manohar Lal Soni S/o Late Dwarika Prasad Soni Aged About 59 Years R/o Infront Of Garden, Shikshak Nagar, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - Anandi Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ramcharan Sharma Aged About 52 Years R/o Madhuban Vatika, Khandelwal Colony, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 5 - Lakhan Lal Sharma S/o Late Ramkishan Sharma Aged About 70 Years Advocate - District Court Durg, R/o Shubhash Nagar, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.06.19 16:23:32 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 16/06/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filled by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 102/2022 registered in Police Station– Somni, District– Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in the interest of Justice. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari and quash the order dated 08/10/2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Rajnandgaon, upon application dated 22/09/2025 submitted by the concerned SHO of P.S. Somni, District - Rajnandgaon, for the furtherance of Justice. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus and direct the Respondent No. 01 to register an First Information Report and initiate criminal proceedings against the Respondent Nos. 02 to 05, as per the Expert Opinion Report No. CID/QD/CX-94/2024/04/25 dated 24/01/2025 issued by the State Examiner of Questioned 3 Documents, Government of Chhattisgarh, in the interest of Justice. 10.4 Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. The case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, is that she is the widow and legal heir of late Shri Mahendra Sharma, who was the recorded owner of lands bearing Khasra No.259/01 admeasuring 2.09 acres and Khasra No.260/01 admeasuring 1.75 acres situated at Village Somni, District Rajnandgaon, in which limestone query is established. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 had been exerting pressure upon late Mahendra Sharma to transfer the aforesaid quarry and land in his favour. It is pleaded that during his lifetime, late Mahendra Sharma had made complaints dated 08.02.2021 and 13.02.2021 before the police authorities about the pressure creating upon him by the respondent No.2 to execute agreement to sell in his favour and had also caused publication of a public notice in a newspaper on 11.02.2021 denying any such transaction. Despite such complaint and denial, respondent No.2 allegedly produced an unregistered agreement to sell dated 20.02.2020 purportedly executed by late Mahendra Sharma and initiated several complaints and proceedings on the strength of the said document. 3. It is further pleaded that on the basis of the aforesaid agreement, FIR No.102/2022 was registered at Police Station Somni under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 IPC against the petitioner and others. During the course of investigation, the disputed signatures appearing on 4 the alleged agreement were referred to the State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of Chhattisgarh, who vide report dated 24.01.2025 opined that the questioned signatures were not written by late Mahendra Sharma. Thereafter, the Investigating Agency submitted a closure report concluding that the agreement relied upon by respondent No.2 was forged and fabricated and that no offence was made out against the petitioner. The said closure report was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon by order dated 11.08.2025. Subsequently, the officials of Police Station Somni submitted an application before the learned JMFC, Rajnandgaon seeking permission to initiate proceedings against respondent Nos.2 to 5 under Sections 182 and 211 IPC. The said application was rejected by order dated 08.10.2025. Aggrieved by the rejection of the said application and seeking further directions for prosecution of respondent Nos.2 to 5, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner was founded upon a forged and fabricated agreement to sell allegedly executed by late Mahendra Sharma. It is submitted that during investigation, the State Examiner of Questioned Documents categorically opined that the disputed signatures appearing on the agreement did not belong to late Mahendra Sharma. It is further submitted that the Investigating Agency, after conducting a detailed investigation, reached a categorical conclusion that the alleged agreement was forged and fabricated and 5 accordingly submitted a closure report, which has also been accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 5. Learned counsel would further submit that once the investigation concluded with the satisfaction of a finding that respondent Nos.2 to 5 had utilized a forged document for setting the criminal law into motion against the petitioner, the authorities were duty bound to initiate criminal proceedings against them. It is argued that the learned JMFC failed to appreciate the overwhelming material collected during investigation and rejected the application preferred by the police officials in a mechanical and arbitrary manner. It is further submitted that the petitioner, who is a widow, has been subjected to immense mental agony, social humiliation and financial hardship on account of false and malicious proceedings initiated by respondent Nos.2 to 5 and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and a direction deserves to be issued for registration of FIR and initiation of criminal proceedings against the private respondents. 6. Learned counsel would also submit that refusal to take action against the actual wrongdoers despite existence of material indicating fabrication of documents amounts to failure of justice and violates the guarantees contained under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed that the impugned order be set aside and appropriate directions be issued in favour of the petitioner. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions of the petitioner and submit that the relief sought by the petitioner is wholly 6 misconceived and not maintainable in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner is, in substance, seeking a direction from this Court for prosecution of specific individuals and for registration of an FIR against them, which relief cannot ordinarily be granted in writ jurisdiction. 8. It is further submitted that the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a complete and efficacious mechanism for redressal of grievances relating to registration of FIR, investigation and prosecution. The petitioner, if so advised, may avail remedies available under the criminal law. It is contended that no person can claim a writ of mandamus compelling the State authorities to prosecute a particular individual merely because certain facts discovered during investigation of another offence. Learned State counsel would submit that the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material produced by the petitioner in the writ petition. 10. The primary relief sought in the present writ petition is twofold; firstly, quashment of the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon and secondly, issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State authorities to register an FIR and initiate criminal proceedings against respondent Nos.2 to 5. 7 11. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the law relating to directions for registration of FIR and initiation of criminal proceedings is no longer res integra. 12. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a person is aggrieved by non- registration of an FIR or improper investigation, the Code itself provides adequate remedies before the Magistrate and the Magistrate possesses wide powers to ensure proper investigation and registration of offences wherever warranted, therefore, writ petitions seeking such directions should ordinarily not be entertained. The Supreme Court observed as under: “11. ……...if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.” 8 13. Again, in M. Subramaniam and another v. S. Janaki and another, (2020) 16 SCC 728, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that when a person seeks registration of FIR or investigation into an alleged offence, the proper course is to invoke the remedies available under the Code and not to seek a writ of mandamus from the High Court. 14. In the case of “Mohan Lal Sahu and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others” WPCR No. 154 of 2026, decided on 23.03.2026, this Court also considered the judgment of Allahabad High Court passed in Misc. Bench No. 24492 of 2020 (Waseem Haider Vs. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Home Others) decided on 14.12.2020 and consistently held that the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to avail the remedy under Sections 156(3) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Sections 175(3) and 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] by approaching the competent court of criminal jurisdiction. 15. In the present case, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class while considering the application of the police station Somani, district Rajnandgaon considered that though while considering a closure report submitted in the crime No. 102/2022, the subject agreement dated 20.02.2022 was found to be forged, however they have also considered that there is no material or evidence, as to who has prepared the said forged agreement and that there is no finding of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class that the complainant of crime No. 102/2022 has prepared the said forged agreement. Considering the entire facts of the case, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class found that there is no sufficient material or evidence for permitting the police authorities to 9 initiate criminal proceeding under Sections 182 and 211 of IPC. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the closure report and expert opinion suggestive of commission of offences by respondent Nos.2 to 5, the same would not automatically confer a legal right upon the petitioner to seek a writ directing compulsory registration of FIR or prosecution of particular individuals, particularly there is lack of sufficient evidence. The question as to whether an offence is prima facie made out, whether investigation is required and whether prosecution should be launched are matters governed by the procedure established by criminal law. 16. Another important aspect of the matter is that the impugned order has been passed by a competent criminal court while considering an application moved by police authorities. The petitioner is not challenging any administrative action of the State but seeks interference with a judicial order passed by a criminal court. Interference under Article 226 against judicial orders of subordinate criminal courts should be exercised sparingly involving patent lack of jurisdiction or manifest perversity. No such exceptional circumstance has been demonstrated in the present case. 17. It is also significant to note that the application before the learned JMFC was founded upon Sections 182 and 211 IPC. The offences contemplated under the aforesaid provisions are governed by a special statutory scheme. The legislature has prescribed specific conditions and procedures for institution of proceedings relating thereto. The petitioner cannot seek to bypass the statutory mechanism by invoking writ jurisdiction and praying for a direct command to prosecute private respondents. 10 18. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 is confined to examining the legality, procedural fairness and jurisdictional competence of the impugned action. The writ court does not ordinarily assume the role of the investigating agency or direct criminal prosecution of identified individuals. The criminal justice system operates through a structured statutory framework and the same cannot be substituted by judicial directions in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 19. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings and documents placed on record, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error, manifest perversity or patent illegality in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of extraordinary or supervisory jurisdiction. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved