1 2026:CGHC:18557-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 228 of 2026 1 - Sanat Kumar Kariyare S/o Shri Dileram Kariyare Aged About 45 Years R/o Bhadesar, Post- Dhaneli, Tehsil- Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2 - Dileram Kariyare S/o Late Runu Ram Kariyare Aged About 70 Years R/o Bhadesar, Post- Dhaneli, Tehsil- Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarters, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Police Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - S.H.O Police Station Janjgir District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Central Bureau Of Investigation Through Its Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Anita Kariyare W/o Sanat K Kariyare Aged About 36 Years D/o Mukund Ram Chaurasiya, R/o Ward No.- (Valmiki Ward) Indra Nagar Khapadipara Janjgir, Thana Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.29 17:10:47 +0530 2 7 - Mukund Ram Chaurasiya S/o Kanhaiya Lal Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 21 (Valmiki Ward) Indra Nagar Khapadipara Janjgir, Thana Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate For State For Respondent No. 5 : : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A. Mr. Vaibhav Gowardhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ali Asgar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing for the Respondents/State as well as Mr. Vaibhav Gowardhan, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5/ CBI. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(A) To call for the record for the perusal of this Hon'ble court. (B) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly issue a writ of Mandamus and issue direction for conducting de novo Inquiry by an independent agency preferably by respondent no.5 i.e. CBI and investigate the role of respondent no. 6, 7 and others involved in the crime & pass necessary orders. (C) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly issue a direction 3 to conduct inquiry against the erring officer who failed to conduct proper inquiry. (D) That any other relief which this court thinks fit in the interest of justice & equity.”. 3. By way of this petition the petitioners are challenging the faulty investigation conducted by respondent authorities in Merg no.0/130/2024 registered at P.S Amanaka, later an FIR no.0857/2025 came to be registered at P.S Janjgir in which a shopkeeper has been made an accused and charge sheet no. 748/2025 was prepared on 30/10/2025 and filed before CJM Janjgir on 29-12-2025. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 was married to respondent No.6 on 16.06.2014 at Village Mudhapara, District Janjgir-Champa, and out of the said wedlock, a male child was born on 22.07.2015. After a few years of marriage, disputes arose between the parties, and on 24.08.2018, an incident of assault allegedly took place, following which respondent No.6 left the matrimonial home along with the minor child and started residing at her parental house. Several attempts were made by the petitioner to reconcile and bring her back, including community intervention and legal proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act and Cr.P.C.; however, the parties continued to live separately. Various litigations were initiated between them, including a case under Section 498A IPC, in which the petitioner was acquitted, 4 and proceedings before the Family Court, which ultimately failed to result in reunion. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner made efforts to meet and seek custody of his minor child by approaching appropriate legal forums, including the Family Court and the State Child Rights Commission, but respondent No.6 allegedly avoided producing the child. During the pendency of such proceedings, on 30.05.2024, the petitioner received information from villagers regarding the death of his minor son and rushed to the cremation ground, only to find that the last rites had already been performed by the relatives of respondent No.6 without informing him. The petitioner raised suspicion regarding the circumstances of the death, particularly as customary burial rites were not followed, and subsequently addressed several representations to the police and administrative authorities seeking a fair inquiry into the incident. 6. Pursuant to the complaint, an inquiry was conducted wherein it was reported that the child had fallen ill and was treated at various places before being admitted to AIIMS Raipur, where he died on 29.05.2024. Initial medical opinion suggested rat poison ingestion as the cause of death, though the RFSL report did not detect poison, and subsequent examination by AIIMS Bhopal again indicated poisoning. On the basis of the investigation, an FIR was registered and a charge-sheet was filed against a 5 shopkeeper; however, the petitioners allege that the investigation was superficial and failed to examine the role of respondent No.6 and others. Despite repeated representations to higher authorities seeking a fair and independent investigation, no effective action was taken, leading the petitioners to approach this Court seeking a de novo inquiry by an independent agency such as CBI. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned inaction and manner of investigation conducted by the respondent authorities is wholly arbitrary and the Investigating Agency has failed to discharge its statutory duty by not verifying crucial and material facts, particularly the specific assertion made by respondent No.6 regarding treatment of the minor child at the District Hospital on 23.05.2024, as no medical records were collected nor any concerned medical officer examined. On the contrary, information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the Civil Surgeon categorically establishes that no such treatment was undertaken on the said date, clearly exposing the falsity of the statement made by respondent No.6; however, the said vital piece of evidence has been completely ignored by the authorities. It is further submitted that respondent No.6 deliberately suppressed material facts regarding the critical illness of the minor child, even on 27.05.2024 when she appeared before the learned Court, which clearly reflects lack of bona fides and raises 6 serious suspicion regarding her conduct and role in the entire incident. The conduct of respondent No.6 in consistently preventing the petitioners from meeting the child, coupled with her alleged association with another individual and other surrounding circumstances, further strengthens the apprehension of foul play. Moreover, despite repeated representations and submission of relevant documents by the petitioners, the police authorities have failed to take into account material contradictions in the statements of respondent Nos. 6 and 7, and have instead adopted a biased and mechanical approach, thereby shielding the real culprits. The non- cooperation of the SHO and senior officers, along with their failure to investigate all relevant aspects and evidence, clearly demonstrates abuse of process of law and lack of fairness in investigation. In such circumstances, it is evident that the investigation conducted is incomplete, one-sided and contrary to law, and therefore, in the interest of justice, it is imperative that this Court intervenes and directs a fair, impartial and independent investigation by a competent agency like CBI to ensure that the truth is unearthed and justice is duly served. 8. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the prayer for directing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation is wholly misconceived and not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is contended that a detailed and lawful 7 investigation has already been conducted by the competent police authorities, wherein all relevant aspects, including medical treatment, statements of witnesses, and scientific evidence such as postmortem report and forensic examination, have been duly considered. The investigation has culminated in registration of FIR and filing of charge-sheet before the competent Court, which is already seized of the matter. Merely because the petitioners are dissatisfied with the outcome of the investigation or seek a different conclusion, the same cannot be a ground to transfer the investigation to the CBI. It is further submitted that there is no material on record to demonstrate any bias, mala fide, or deliberate inaction on the part of the Investigating Agency so as to warrant such an extraordinary step. The law is well settled that transfer of investigation to the CBI is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances where the Court finds that the investigation is tainted or lacks credibility, which is not the case herein. Hence, the present prayer deserves to be rejected as the investigation conducted is fair, proper, and in accordance with law. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have carefully perused the records placed along with the writ petition. 10. From perusal of the document annexed with the present petition, it transpires that the dispute with respect to the custody of the minor child was pending before the learned Family Court, Janjgir-Champa and the present petitioner No. 1 claimed to be the guardian of the minor, however, the respondent No. 6 also claimed to be the natural guardian of the minor. There are matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 6 for restitution of conjugal rights 8 which was also prosecuted before the learned Family Court, Janjgir- Champa in Civil Suit No. 132-A/2019, which was disposed of on 30.09.2019 on the settlement arrived at between the parties. On the complaint made by respondent No. 6, the petitioners along with other family members were prosecuted for the offence under Sectuion 498-A of the IPC in Criminal Case No. 1730/2018 which was decided on 29.04.2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Janjgir, in which the accused persons were acquitted from all the charges. There are numerous complaints filed by the petitioners against the respondent No. 6 and it transpires that there was family dispute between the parties. From the statement of the petitioners annexed at Page No. 261 and 265 of the petition their family dispute have been disclosed including the dispute with respect to the death of the child. It further transpires that the Police authorities have enquired the matter and submitted a report dated 17.12.2024 before the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir- Champa. After a detailed investigation in the Crime No. 857/2025, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for directing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. It is well settled that transfer of investigation to the CBI is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is satisfied that the investigation conducted by the State machinery is tainted, biased, or wholly ineffective. In the present case, the 9 material on record reflects that the competent police authorities have already conducted an investigation, collected medical and scientific evidence, and filed the charge-sheet before the jurisdictional Court, which is competent to examine the correctness of the same in accordance with law. 12. Further in the case of K.V. Rajendran Vs. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai and others, (2013) 12 SCC 480 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 13 of its judgment that:- “13. The issue involved herein, is no more res integra. This Court has time and again dealt with the issue under what circumstances the investigation can be transferred from the State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI. It has been held that the power of transferring such investigation must be in rare and exceptional cases where the court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to instil confidence in the public mind, or where investigation by the State police lacks credibility and it is necessary for having "a fair, honest and complete investigation", and particularly, when it is impera-tive to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies Where the investigation has al-ready been completed and charge- sheet has been filed, ordinarily superior courts should 10 not reopen the in-vestigation and it should be left open to the court, where the charge-sheet has been filed, to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Under no circumstances, should the court make any expression of its opinion on merit relating to any accusation against any individual. (Vide Gudalure M.J Cherian v. Union of India (1992) 1 SCC 397. R. S Sodhi v. State 51 of U.P 1994 Supp (1) SCC 143, AIR 1994 SC 38, Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Assn. v. State of Punjab (1994) 1 SCC 616, AIR 1994 SC 1023, Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 199, Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi (1996) 6 SCC 500, AIR 1997 SC 314. Disha v. State of Gujarat (2011) 13 SCC 337, AIR 2011 SC 3168, Rajender Singh Pathania v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 13. SCC 329 and State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770, AIR 2012 SC 364.) 13. It further appears that the dispute between the parties emanates from a strained matrimonial relationship, and the allegations raised by the petitioners are intrinsically connected to such personal discord. Mere dissatisfaction with the manner of investigation or an attempt to implicate additional persons cannot be a ground to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for transferring the investigation to the CBI. The petitioners have efficacious alternative remedies available under law, including 11 raising all permissible objections before the Trial Court or seeking further investigation in accordance with law. 14. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any exceptional circumstance warranting interference or transfer of investigation. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika