1 CGHC010320672026 2026:CGHC:36744-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 476 of 2026 1 - Xyz Nil. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mantralaya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Legal Services Authority Through Its Secretary, Old High Court Building, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Legal Service Authority, Kabirdham Through Its Secretary, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - Superintendent Of Police Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 6 - Thana In-Charge Police Station, Pipariya, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.08.19 15:03:14 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18.08.2026 1. Heard Ms. Rajni Soren, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the State/Respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):- “(i) Set-aside order dated 27.10.2025 passed by District Legal Services Authority, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.). (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the District Legal Services Authority, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) to re assess the petitioners' case and grant interim compensation under the NALSA'S Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/other Crimes-2018. (iii) Pass any other order the Hon'ble court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner, a victim of rape, lodged FIR No. 51/2022 dated 02.02.2022 at Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.), initially for offences under Sections 376(3), 376(2)(n) and 415 of the IPC, with Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 being added during investigation. As per the FIR, the accused, who was known to the petitioner and resided in the same village, entered her room on 30.01.2022 while she was asleep and committed rape upon her, whereafter, on her raising an alarm, her family members arrived and the accused fled. 4. The petitioner subsequently submitted an application dated 25.10.2025 under Section 357-A Cr.P.C. and the Victim Compensation Scheme, 3 2018, seeking interim compensation on the ground that she had suffered mental, physical and financial harm due to the incident. The Superintendent of Police, Kabirdham, recommended grant of compensation. However, the District Legal Services Authority, Kabirdham, rejected the application on the ground that there was no material demonstrating the petitioner’s need for interim compensation and that the application had been filed after considerable delay from the date of the incident. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the rejection order and grant of interim compensation under Section 357-A Cr.P.C. and the Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a minor at the time of the incident and is a victim of the offences punishable under Sections 376(3), 376(2)(n) and 415 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and is therefore entitled to appropriate compensation under Section 357-A Cr.P.C. and the Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018. It is further submitted that the Superintendent of Police, Kabirdham, has already recommended grant of interim compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner was studying in Class 10 at the time of the incident but, owing to the trauma suffered, discontinued her studies, and was also allegedly subjected to pressure and threats by the family members of the accused to enter into a compromise, regarding which she submitted a complaint before the Superintendent of Police. Learned counsel further submits that the District Legal Services Authority failed to consider the relevant factors prescribed under Clause 8 of the Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018, particularly the gravity of the offence, the mental and physical harm 4 suffered, the loss of educational opportunity and the financial condition and rehabilitation needs of the petitioner, and mechanically rejected the application merely on the ground that there was no material showing her need for interim compensation and that the application was filed after a lapse of time. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned decision is arbitrary, contrary to the object of the victim compensation scheme and violative of the petitioner’s rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and that the petitioner deserves to be granted appropriate interim compensation in accordance with law. 6. Learned State counsel would submit that the District Legal Services Authority, Kabirdham, has rightly considered the application submitted by the petitioner and rejected the same upon finding that there was no sufficient material on record to establish her present need for interim compensation. It is further submitted that the application for compensation was filed on 25.10.2025, after a considerable lapse of time from the date of the incident, which occurred on 30.01.2022, and the petitioner has not placed any cogent material to demonstrate that she incurred or is likely to incur any expenditure towards medical treatment, counselling, rehabilitation or any other immediate need warranting interim compensation. The recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police, by itself, does not create an indefeasible right to compensation, as the competent authority is required to assess the claim in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018. It is therefore submitted that no arbitrariness or violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution can be attributed to the respondents and the present petition, being devoid of 5 merit, deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document annexed with the petition. 8. Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the District Legal Services Authority, Kabirdham, it appears that the petitioner had sought interim compensation under Section 357-A Cr.P.C. and the Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018, alleging that she had suffered mental, physical and financial harm on account of the incident. The Superintendent of Police, Kabirdham, upon verification, had recommended that compensation be granted to the petitioner. The Authority, however, rejected the application principally on the ground that no material had been placed on record to establish any immediate financial or other need warranting interim compensation, that the police certificate did not disclose the basis for recommending such compensation, that no external injury was found in the medical examination, and that the application had been filed on 25.10.2025, after a considerable lapse of time from the date of the incident, without any explanation for the delay. The Authority further observed that the order was confined only to interim compensation and that the petitioner would remain at liberty to seek compensation in accordance with law if the Trial Court subsequently recommended the same. 9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner had sought interim compensation under Section 357- A of the Cr.P.C. and the Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018. It is not in dispute that the Superintendent of Police, Kabirdham, had recommended grant of compensation to the petitioner. However, the 6 question before this Court is whether, on the basis of the material placed before the District Legal Services Authority, the petitioner had established an immediate need warranting grant of interim compensation at the relevant stage. 10. From perusal of the impugned order dated 27.10.2025, it appears that the District Legal Services Authority has considered the application, the affidavit submitted by the petitioner, the statement of the petitioner, the medical report and the report/certificate submitted by the police authorities. The Authority has recorded a specific finding that no material was placed on record to demonstrate the petitioner’s immediate financial, medical, educational or rehabilitative requirement so as to warrant grant of interim compensation. It has also been noticed that the application was submitted on 25.10.2025, after a considerable lapse of time from the date of the incident, without any explanation or supporting material for such delay. 11. Though the nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner is undoubtedly serious and the fact that the petitioner was a minor at the relevant time cannot be lost sight of, the grant of interim compensation under the statutory scheme has to be considered on the basis of the material demonstrating the immediate need of the victim and the factors prescribed under the applicable scheme. In the present case, the District Legal Services Authority, upon consideration of the material placed before it, has found that no such immediate requirement was established. The recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, by itself, cannot be treated as conclusive for determination of the quantum or entitlement to interim compensation, particularly when the competent authority is required to undertake an assessment in accordance with 7 the statutory scheme. 12. It is also significant that the impugned order does not foreclose the petitioner’s right to seek compensation in accordance with law. The District Legal Services Authority has specifically clarified that the order is confined to the claim for interim compensation and that, in the event of a recommendation for compensation by the Trial Court in the criminal proceedings, the competent authority would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with the applicable provisions of law and the Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018. Thus, the petitioner’s substantive right to seek compensation has not been finally extinguished by the impugned order. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the District Legal Services Authority has considered the relevant material and has assigned cogent reasons for declining interim compensation at this stage. The findings recorded in the impugned order cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations warranting interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the District Legal Services Authority, Kabirdham. 14. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika