1 CGHC010204752026 2026:CGHC:30337-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 397 of 2026 Shahin W/o Shekh Ismail Dalla Aged About 48 Years R/o Om Nagar, Jarhabhata, Present Address Sihote House Kasturba Nagar Jarhabhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Director General Of Police Police Headquarters, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Senior Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4. Station House Officer Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5. Shekh Ismail Dalla S/o Late Shekh Latif Dalla Aged About 58 Years R/o Om Nagar, Jarhabhata, Near Minar Art Printers House, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : None. For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.17 17:16:18 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi , Judge Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge 17.07.2026 1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner, nor has any representation been made to press this petition despite repeated calls. 2. Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appears on behalf of the State/respondents Nos. 1 to 4, is present. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ(s), order(s), direction(s) by direction the respondent authorities to register the FIR against the respondent No. 5, taking into consideration the contents of Annexure P/1 dated 04.05.2026 as per Section 173 of Bharitya Nagrik Suraksha, 2023 and the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lalita Kumar vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Others, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the matter. As an alternative relief, the petitioner pray that, the matter may kindly be 3 referred to an independent investigation agency for investigating the entire matter. 10.3 Any other relief(s) in form of order or orders and/or direction(s) as your lordships may deem fit and proper.” 4. We have perused the pleadings and documents placed on record. 5. From a perusal of the pleadings and the relief sought in the present writ petition, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner is that despite submission of written complaints dated 04.04.2026 and 04.05.2026 before Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur against respondent No. 5, alleging commission of cognizable offences, no First Information Report has been registered by the police authorities. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 induced her into establishing a physical relationship on the false promise of marriage and continuously represented her as his wife. It is further alleged that respondent No. 5 acknowledged the petitioner as his wife before the Family Court and thereafter established physical relations with her for several years. Subsequently, respondent No. 5 denied the marital relationship as well as the paternity of the children born out of their relationship. 7. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 5 converted the petitioner to Islam and performed Nikah with her. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 5 subsequently destroyed the Nikahnama and later remarried her, but retained the Nikahnama in his possession and 4 refused to hand it over despite repeated demands. 8. The petitioner has further alleged that respondent No. 5 is continuously threatening and harassing her with a view to compel her to transfer her residential house in his favour and is also extending threats to her life. It is further alleged that despite repeated complaints to the police authorities, no effective action has been taken till date. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the grievance of the petitioner can be adequately addressed before the competent Court by filing an application under Section 175(3) or Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is further submitted that the controversy involved in the present petition is no longer res integra and stands covered by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Waseem Haider vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home & Others (Misc. Bench No. 24492 of 2020, decided on 14.12.2020) and by the judgment of this Court in Akhilesh Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WPCR No. 333 of 2020, decided on 12.04.2023), wherein it has been held that in such matters the aggrieved person has an efficacious statutory remedy before the competent Magistrate. 10. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned State counsel and have also perused the material available on record. 11. The principal relief sought in the present writ petition is a direction to the police authorities to register an FIR against respondent No. 5. The petitioner alleges inaction on the part of the police authorities 5 despite disclosure of cognizable offences. 12. It is well settled that where the police fail to register an FIR or to conduct a proper investigation, the aggrieved person has an efficacious statutory remedy before the jurisdictional Magistrate under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Magistrate is competent to exercise powers in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders on such application. 13. In view of the availability of the aforesaid alternative statutory remedy and the law laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Waseem Haider (supra) and by this Court in Akhilesh Agrawal (supra), we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the competent Court. 15. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner, and the competent Court shall consider any proceedings instituted by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made herein. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Judge Brijmohan