WPC/4750/2021 of RAMESH KUMAR SAHU, Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 16 September 2026

1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Women (in short “the Commission”), the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs :

(i) To kindly quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.10.2021 (ANNEXURE-P/1).

(ii) To kindly grant any other relief which seems just and fair in the eyes of law.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and complainant, Deepa Bakshi are neighbours. The complainant and her family have a history of criminal antecedents with multiple cases already pending against them. Deepa Bakshi, along with her husband, brothers, and other family members, is allegedly involved in illegal activities, including illicit sale of liquor, gambling, and running a den from her residence. The petitioner has previously filed police complaints regarding these illegal activities and related proceedings are currently pending. Subsequently, a complaint was filed by Deepa Bakshi before Respondent No. 2 (the Commission), alleging that the petitioner has been calling her a

"tonhi" (witch) and accusing her of practicing witchcraft. No prior notice of the proceedings initiated by the Respondent- Commission was served upon the petitioner. He was merely informed through a telephonic call to appear before the Commission on 20.10.2021. On appearing at the Commission's office, he was shown a notice dated 08.10.2021, which was never served or sent to him. On 20.10.2021, while hearing numerous matters, the Respondent-Commission passed the impugned order relying solely on the unverified allegations levelled by Deepa Bakshi, without affording any reasonable opportunity of hearing or defense to the petitioner. Ultimately, the matter was disposed of on the very first day the petitioner was asked to appear. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the complainant’s statements were accepted unconditionally, violating principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the impugned order contains one-sided observations, completely ignoring the criminal background of Deepa Bakshi and her family, while making adverse personal remarks against the petitioner without conducting any proper inquiry or recording evidence. The complaint before the Respondent-Commission is clearly a retaliatory tactic used by Deepa Bakshi to shield herself and her family from ongoing legal proceedings and to silence the petitioner from raising his voice against their unlawful acts. Based on the impugned order, defamatory articles were published in local newspapers containing false information, severely tarnishing the reputation, dignity, and social standing of the petitioner. Hence, this Petition.

4. Mr. KPS Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Commission for Women has directed the registration of an FIR against the petitioner at Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivarana Act. He submits that passing such a direction is beyond the jurisdiction and authority of the Commission and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

5. Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent- Commission for Women submits that the impugned order does not direct the registration of an FIR, but is merely recommendatory in nature. Hence, he submits that the order is well within the authority of the Commission and in accordance with law.

6. Ms. Akansha Verma, learned counsel for the Respondent- State as well as Mr. Akash Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondent- complainant submit that the impugned order has rightly been passed, which does not call for any interference.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition with utmost circumspection.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the settled position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Bhabani Prasad Jena Vs. Orissa State Commission for Women reported in (2010) 8 SCC 633 and Mumbai Port Authority Vs. National Commission for

Scheduled Caste and others reported in (2026 SCC OnLine 1398), this Court is of the opinion that the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Women, Raipur possesses limited recommendatory powers and cannot convert its fact-finding jurisdiction into an adjudicatory power. The Commission has, therefore, acted in excess of its jurisdiction.

9. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Women, Raipur, being manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction, is hereby quashed/set aside.

10. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is Allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge Shyna Ajay