1 CGHC010087362021 2026:CGHC:27652-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 215 of 2021 Manju Pandey W/o Vimlesh Dubey Aged About 41 Years R/o Tikarapara, Chhattisgarh Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home (Police) Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kotwali Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Gereral Of Police Chhattisgarh Sector 19, Atal Nagar (New Raipur), District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Inspector General Of Police Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Superintendent Of Police Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Superintendent Of Police Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.07.07 19:00:58 +0530 2 7 - Vimlesh Dubey Inspector, Line Attach Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06/07/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality and validity of the orders dated 06.02.2021 and 06.03.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur in Complaint Case No.47/2021 arising out of an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whereby the learned Magistrate directed registration of an FIR against the petitioner and subsequently directed submission of the final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner has also sought quashment of FIR No.184/2021 registered pursuant to the aforesaid orders and has further prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondent authorities to register an FIR against respondent No.7 for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 494, 495 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has filed the 3 present writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to respondent state to call for entire record pertaining to the preliminarily enquiry conducted by the office of the respondent no. 6 against the private respondent no. 7. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash & set aside impugned Order Dated 06.02.2021 & 06.03.2021 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur in complaint case no. 47/2021. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash & set aside criminal proceeding in complaint case no. 47/2021 and to quash F.I.R. no 184/21 Dated 18.02.2021 inconsonance of complaint case no. 47/21. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to lodge an F.I.R. under section 494, 495 & 496 of Indian Penal Code against the private respondent no. 7. 10.5 That, any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.7 and that during the subsistence of the marriage, respondent No.7 attempted to contract a second marriage. According to the petitioner, despite information furnished to the police authorities, no action was taken against respondent No.7 for the alleged offence of bigamy and, instead, respondent No.7 initiated proceedings under 4 Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. alleging that the marriage certificate and allied documents relied upon by the petitioner were forged and fabricated. Pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Magistrate, the FIR came to be registered against the petitioner, which according to her is an abuse of the process of law and has been lodged only to harass her and to shield respondent No.7 from criminal as well as departmental proceedings. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders dated 06.02.2021 and 06.03.2021 have been passed mechanically without proper application of mind and in complete disregard of the law governing exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It is contended that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the dispute essentially pertains to the validity of marriage and the marriage certificate, which is civil in nature, and therefore the criminal machinery ought not to have been set in motion. It is further submitted that the petitioner had already informed the police authorities regarding the proposed second marriage of respondent No.7, but despite disclosure of the commission of offences under Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC, the authorities failed to take action and merely conducted proceedings under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. It is argued that the FIR registered against the petitioner is a counterblast to her complaint and deserves to be quashed along with the impugned orders. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the learned Magistrate, upon considering the material placed before him, found a 5 prima facie case for directing registration of the FIR and accordingly exercised jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that pursuant to the said order, FIR No.184/2021 has already been registered and investigation has substantially progressed. It is further contended that the allegations made by the petitioner regarding offences under Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC were dealt with by conducting proceedings under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., those offences being non-cognizable in nature, and no challenge was made to those proceedings. Learned State counsel submits that no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 supports the impugned orders and submits that the allegations levelled by the petitioner are wholly false and that no marriage was ever solemnized between the petitioner and respondent No.7. It is contended that the marriage certificate and supporting documents relied upon by the petitioner are forged and fabricated and that the investigation conducted pursuant to the FIR has collected sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence substantiating the offences alleged against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the handwriting expert's report and other materials collected during investigation prima facie establish forgery and fabrication of documents. According to learned counsel, the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences and therefore no interference is warranted in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 6 documents annexed with the petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who is the first wife of the respondent No.7, has come before this Court with the aforesaid reliefs. From perusal of the relief clause, it transpires that in relief clause No.10.2 the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 06.02.2021, by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has directed registration of an FIR against the petitioner and the order dated 06.03.2021, by which the Station House Officer has been directed to submit the final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 24.03.2021, had stayed the operation of the aforesaid two orders passed by the learned Magistrate. 8. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has pointed out that the FIR in the present case had already been registered on 16.02.2021 pursuant to the order dated 06.02.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate and the said fact was not brought to the notice of this Court while obtaining the interim order dated 24.03.2021. In response thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also sought quashment of the FIR in relief clause No.10.3 and though the date of registration of the FIR has inadvertently been mentioned as 18.02.2021 instead of 16.02.2021, the challenge to the FIR was very much part of the writ petition. It is further submitted that because of the interim protection granted by this Court, the investigation could not culminate into submission of the final report. 9. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that the challenge to the orders dated 7 06.02.2021 and 06.03.2021 has lost much of its significance inasmuch as the FIR had already been registered pursuant to the order passed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the interim order came to be passed. Once the FIR has already been registered and the investigation has substantially progressed, the directions contained in the impugned orders have already worked themselves out. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to examine the merits of the allegations or the correctness of the investigation in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, particularly when the statutory remedy against the consequential proceedings would be available to the petitioner after submission of the police report. 10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, the present writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available in law, if any final report/charge-sheet is submitted pursuant to FIR No.184/2021. The petitioner shall be at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, or any other remedy available in accordance with law, if so advised. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made by either party and all questions are left open to be considered by the competent Court at the appropriate stage. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved