ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition (criminal) challenging the FIR dated 14.12.2020 registered in connection with Crime No.239 at Police Station Bhanupratappur District Kanker for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506-B, 34, of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that the respondent No.4 is wife of the petitioner, she made complaint to the Chhattisgarh State Women Commission Raipur (in short Commission) mainly contending that the petitioner is harassing her, committing unnatural sex with her and tortured her for dowry. She was physically and mentally tortured and even she has been given threat to kill by the petitioner and his parents. It has been further contended by respondent No.4, the mother-in-law of the petitioner is always harassing her she was abusing, pressurized her not to conceive pregnancy as such she was given medicine to prevent the same. The act committed by the petitioner and his family members falls under Sections 498-A, 506-B, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. The petitioner has filed this petition wherein the Commission was not arrayed party in this case, therefore, this Court was directed the petitioner to make party to the Commission as respondent because authority and jurisdiction of the commission has been assailed by the petitioner. In pursuance of order dated 9-6-2021 passed by this Court, “State Commission for Women” has been arrayed as respondent No.1-A before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further amended the petition, made certain averments as well as challenged the order dated 02.12.2020 and letter dated (Annexure P-1A) wherein it has been contended by him that Commission respondent No.1A has no authority to pass the order dated 02.12.2020 and has also no authority to issue direction to register FIR, as same would amount to judicial power and cannot be exercised by the Commission.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that non investigation agency or non judicial body cannot exercise power under Sections 154, 153 or 200 of CrPC as the Commission has no authority to take initiation for registration of FIR and he would refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naman Singh and Others Vs. State of UP reported in 2019 (2) SCC 344 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the administrative body cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 156(3), 200 of Code and cannot direct the police to register the FIR. He would further submit that from bare perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out. Therefore, initiation of criminal proceeding is bad-in-law and same is liable to be quashed. He would further submit that initiation of criminal proceeding is nothing but abuse of process of law, therefore, registration on the strength of Commission is liable to be quashed.

5. The Commission has taken cognizance of the complaint as reflected in the order sheet filed by the petitioner by way of additional document, registered the complaint vide its order dated 26.10.2020 and thereafter proceedings were initiated. The respondent No.1A Commission considering the contention of the complainant as well as considering the submission of the petitioner has observed that it is justifiable to recommend the Police Station to register FIR. The Commission vide its letter dated 02.12.2020 has recommended the Police Station incharge Telibandha District Raipur to register FIR against Bhupendra Sahu, Lalita Sahu, Govind Ram Sahu and Ravikant Sahu under Section 4 of prohibition of Dowry Act and other offences and thereafter, further observed that FIR may be transferred to Police Station Charama District Kanker and after registration of FIR submission of final report information may be given to the Commission.

6. The petitioner has challenged registration of FIR (Annexure P1) dated 14.12.2020 on the basis of direction /recommendation of Commission g