1 2026:CGHC:15467-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 179 of 2026 Harishankar Tiwari S/o Sukhan Prasad Tiwari Aged About 45 Years R/o Ashwaryam Colony, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Home Department, Mahanadi Mantralaya Bhawan Atal Nagar New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur, Range, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Police Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Station House Officer Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the respondents / State. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.04.07 11:36:50 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “10.1 That it is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to conduct fair and proper enquiry about the complaint made by the petitioner (Annexure P-2) in the interest of justice. 10.2 That it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction for conducting fair investigation by any of the special investigation agency other then the respondents for the ends of justice. 10.3 That it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction that your Lordships may deemed fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner in the facts and circumstance of the case.” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner was married to Smt. Rajeshwari Tiwari in the year 2006 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, and both parties are governed by Hindu personal law. Out of the said wedlock, three children were born, namely two sons and one daughter, out of whom one son unfortunately expired in the year 2020, and presently the surviving son Reshu Tiwari and daughter Mithi Tiwari are residing with and under the care and custody of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the marriage, his wife developed an illicit relationship with one Pawan Tripathi and failed to discharge 3 her matrimonial obligations, and thereafter left the matrimonial home without any information to the petitioner or his family members, compelling the petitioner to lodge a missing report before the concerned police station, which ultimately culminated in a closure report upon recovery of the said Rajeshwari Tiwari by the police authorities. However, despite such recovery, she allegedly continued her relationship with the said Pawan Tripathi and her whereabouts presently remain unascertained. The petitioner further relies upon an affidavit dated 27.08.2025 purportedly executed by Rajeshwari Tiwari, wherein she is stated to have admitted that she had voluntarily gone to Hyderabad with the said Pawan Tripathi and had handed over all movable and immovable properties, along with signed bank-related documents, to the petitioner. It is further apprehended by the petitioner that any financial transaction undertaken by him on the strength of such documents may expose him to false complaints at the instance of his wife, thereby causing irreparable loss and prejudice. It is further the grievance of the petitioner that despite approaching the respondent authorities and bringing the aforesaid facts to their notice, no effective action has been taken except issuance of notice under Section 174 of the BNSS, and the investigation conducted so far is alleged to be perfunctory and biased. Consequently, the petitioner has approached higher authorities including the Superintendent of Police seeking a fair, impartial, and proper investigation. Being aggrieved by the 4 inaction and lack of credible investigation on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has preferred this present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite repeated approaches and representations made by the petitioner before the respondent authorities as well as higher authorities, no effective steps have been taken and the investigation conducted thus far is tainted, biased, and lacks credibility, thereby failing to instill confidence. It is further submitted that material aspects, including prior communications and circumstances immediately preceding the incident, have been ignored by the investigating authorities, which raises serious doubt as to the fairness of the investigation, and suggests an attempt to shield certain individuals, including a police personnel within the local jurisdiction. It is also urged that the petitioner continues to suffer prejudice on account of such inaction, including inability to operate a joint bank account due to objections raised by his wife, thereby causing financial hardship. Learned counsel submits that the conduct of the respondent authorities in remaining inactive and not discharging their statutory duties in accordance with law amounts to a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to appropriate directions from this Court for ensuring a fair, honest, and impartial investigation. 5. Learned State counsel, per contra, submits that the allegations 5 levelled by the petitioner are misconceived and devoid of merit, and that the respondent authorities have acted strictly in accordance with law while conducting the investigation. It is contended that upon receipt of the complaint, due procedure was followed and necessary steps were undertaken, including issuance of notice under Section 174 of the BNSS, and therefore there is no inaction or deliberate delay on the part of the authorities. It is further submitted that the investigation is still at a preliminary stage and cannot be termed as biased or tainted merely on the basis of the petitioner’s apprehensions, which are unfounded and speculative in nature. Learned State counsel denies that any material evidence has been ignored or that there is any attempt to shield any individual, including any police personnel, and submits that all relevant aspects are being duly considered in accordance with law. It is thus urged that the present petition is premature, devoid of substance, and does not warrant interference by this Court, and is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 7. Upon careful consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the grievance of the petitioner primarily pertains to alleged inaction and unfairness in the course of investigation. However, it is evident that the respondent authorities have already set the process in motion and have 6 undertaken preliminary steps in accordance with law. At this stage, the investigation cannot be said to be so tainted or biased as to warrant interference by this Court, particularly when the petitioner’s allegations are largely based on apprehensions and have not been substantiated by cogent material. It is well settled that this Court ought not to interfere in the investigative process unless a clear case of mala fide or gross illegality is made out, which is not discernible in the present case. 8. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the reliefs as prayed for, and the present petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet