1 CGHC010373992026 2026:CGHC:42180 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4947 of 2026 1 - Vivek Kumar Kesharwani S/o Shri Suresh Kumar Kesharwani Aged About 35 Years R/o Bazaar Chowk Yadunandan Nagar Ward No.- 7, Tifra District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt, Panch Devi Kesharwani W/o Shri Suresh Kumar Kesharwani Aged About 61 Years R/o Bazaar Chowk Yadunandan Nagar Ward No. 07, Tifra, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through -The Secretary Department Of Women And Child Development Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgrh Rajay Mahila Ayog Through Its Chaiperson, Gayatri Bhawan, 13, Jal Vihar Conoly Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt, Vaishali, Kesharwani W/o Shri Vivek Kumar Kesharwani Aged About 32 Years R/o Near F C I Godown, Tilda, Nevra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate For Res./State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Government Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.10.03 12:29:28 +0530 2 reliefs:- “(1) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (2) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 (Annexure P- 1) passed by the respondent No. 2 herein. (3) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deems fit and proper.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Aayog has exceeded its jurisdiction by recording an order directing the petitioner to lodge an FIR. It is further submitted that the concerned jurisdictional police authorities were also directed to register the FIR and to inform the Aayog accordingly. According to learned counsel, such a direction is not permissible in law, as the Aayog has no adjudicatory jurisdiction to pass such an order. It is contended that the Aayog could, at the most, make appropriate recommendations in accordance with law and could not issue a binding direction of an adjudicatory nature. Thus, the impugned order is stated to be without jurisdiction and contrary to law. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/Aayog submits that the order passed by the Aayog has perhaps been misconstrued by the petitioner. It is submitted that the purport and intent of the order was only to direct the petitioner to 3 lodge an appropriate FIR in accordance with law and that no adjudicatory direction was intended to be issued. It is further submitted that the Aayog has not exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the said order. 4. Learned State counsel also submits that the order passed by the Aayog is in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the law laid down by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments, it is evident that the Aayog is vested only with recommendatory powers and has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the merits of the matter. 7. From a perusal of the order-sheet dated 21.07.2025, it appears that the order in question pertains to the year 2025. The petitioner is not in a position to state as to whether any FIR has been lodged pursuant to the said order. In the event that any FIR has been lodged on the basis thereof, the petitioner as well as the other concerned persons would be required to avail the appropriate remedy, including filing an application for quashing of the said FIR, in accordance with law. 4 8. However, in the event that no FIR has been lodged pursuant to the aforesaid order, the order dated 21.05.2025 shall stand quashed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ami