Page 1 of 8

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPCR No. 269 of 2021

Reserved on 08.07.2021

Delivered on 06.08 2021

1. Bhupendra Kumar Sahu, S/o Mr. Govindram Sahu, Aged About

31 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Salihapara, Police Station

Bhanupratappur, Bhanupratappur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Superintendent Of Police,

District Kanker C.G.

1(A) Chhattisgarh State Woman Commission Raipur Through Its

President, Gayatri Bhawan, 13 Jal Vihar Colony, Raipur

Chhattisgarh.

2. Station House Officer Police Station Bhanupratappur, Kanker

Chhattisgarh.

3. Station House Officer Police Station Telibandha, Raipur

Chhattisgarh.

4.'' V ''

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

: Shri Raza Ali, Advocate

For State

: Shri Rakesh Sahu, Dy. Government,

Advocate

For respondent No.4

: Shri R. K. Pali, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice

Narendra Kumar Vyas

CAV 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

Page 2 of 8

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)

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

Page 3 of 8

nothing but abuse of process of law, therefore, registration on the

strength of Commission is lia