1 CGHC010334062023 2026:CGHC:39172 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8915 of 2023  Sanjay Kumar Joshi S/o. Late Juguldas Joshi, Aged About 37 Years R/o.Ward No.10, Housing Board Colony Parsada Bharni, Police Station -Sakri, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Arun Kumar Chandrawanshi, Constable No. 840, C/o. Additional Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No.1&2 : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, P.L. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 07.09.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to order CG Police to initiate Departmental enquiry against its employee Private Respondent no.3, who permission to marry Petitioner's wife even though he was sought married to another women at that time, and was allowed to live in Relationship with Second Women i.e. Petitioner's wife without getting divorce from first wife. 2 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to order CG Police to compensate Rs 10 lakh only to Petitioner, as Respondent no.3 being a Government servant is in live in relationship with Petitioner's wife, by virtue of permission given by CG Government under rule 22 of CG civil service (Conduct) rule 1965 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case. 2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner, who is a married person is working on the post of Dog Trainer in the Police Department and respondent No. 3 is working on the post of Constable in the same department. On 05.07.2022, petitioner returned home at 03:30 am after duty and found his wife and respondent No. 3 in objectionable position. Petitioner made a complaint at the concerned Police Station. Wife of the petitioner appeared before the Thana In-charge, Sakri Police Station and admitted that there was love affair between her and respondent No. 3 and they want to reside together. Thereafter, petitioner made a complaint before the police authorities to initiate departmental inquiry against the respondent No. 3 alleging bigamy. 3) Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is undisputed that respondent No. 3 entered into an extramarital marriage with the petitioner’s wife despite being married, thereby committing bigamy, however, no departmental inquiry has been initiated against him. He further submits that 3 petitioner is entitled for compensation as his fundamental rights have been infringed. He prays that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to initiate departmental inquiry against respondent No. 3 and grant monetary compensation to the petitioner. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 would oppose. He submits that there is no material on record to establish that respondent No. 3 is guilty of bigamy and the FIR registered u/s 294, 34,341 and 506 of IPC against him has been quashed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in CRMP No. 652 of 2024 and another connected matter vide judgment dated 03.10.2024. 5) Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned State counsel submits that on the basis of complaint made by petitioner, an inquiry was initiated against respondent No. 3 wherein the Inquiry Officer summoned the petitioner to record his statement. He further submits that petitioner misbehaved with the Inquiry Officer and failed to record his statement. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7) Admittedly, there is allegation against the respondent No. 3 to the effect that he performed marriage with the petitioner’s wife but there is no material available on the record to presume it. As informed by learned State counsel, in the inquiry initiated by the department 4 against the respondent No. 3, despite being called, petitioner failed to record his statement and misbehaved with Inquiry Officer and thus, did not cooperate in the inquiry. In my opinion, petitioner should have filed a complaint case before the competent Criminal Court under Section 494 of IPC. 8) In this writ petition, petitioner has sought a direction to the respondent authorities to initiate departmental inquiry against the respondent No. 3 but in absence of any material available on record or any clinching evidence, such direction cannot be issued. Furthermore, the FIR registered against the respondent No. 3 has been quashed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in CRMP No. 652 of 2024 and another connected matter vide judgment dated 03.10.2024. 9) With regard to compensation, claim of petitioner appears to be misconceived and if the petitioner is aggrieved by any action on the part of respondents, he has the remedy to approach the competent Civil Court claiming therein compensation etc. 10) In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am not inclined to grant any relief as prayed for in the writ petition. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y A Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.09 16:14:43 +0530