[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Manisha Sarthi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

2026:CGHC:12599-DB
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPCR No. 143 of 2026
Manisha Sarthi W/o Rahul Sarthi Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 03
Shanti Nagar Dhedadabri Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh

2. Superintendent of Police Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

3. Station House Officer Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh

4. Pinky Shriwas W/o Satyavan Shriwas Aged About 32 Years R/o
L.I.G. Bees, Dindayal Colony, Behtarai, Bilaspur District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh

5. Rahul Sarthi S/o Nandkishore Sarthi Aged About 27 Years R/o
Devarchal Chingrajpara Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

6. Rajesh Shriwas S/o Mohan Shriwas Aged About 30 Years R/o
Sarjubagicha Telipara Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

...Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE For Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate.

MORLE     Date:
          2026.03.17
          17:56:18
                       For Respondents/State       :       Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government
                                                           Advocate.
          +0530


               Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
             Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
                                 Order on Board


Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice



17.03.2026

1. Heard Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing

for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:

"10.1 That, the petitioner craves the kind indulgence of

this Hon'ble Court for grant of the following relief(s):-

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased

to allow the present writ petition preferred by the

petitioner and call for the records pertaining to the

present case.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

direct commanding the respondent No. 2 to 3 and to

provide adequate and effective police protection to the

petitioner to ensure the safety of their live and

personal liberty.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

directing the respondents to ensure that no coercive

or illegal action is taken against the petitioner at the

behest of the respondents No. 4 to 6.

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

direction to the respondent authority to tale

appropriate action against the private respondent i.e.

No. 5, restraining them from interfering in the peaceful

lives of the petitioner or form causing any physical

harm, or mental harassment during the pendency of

their respective divorce proceedings.

10.5 That any other relief/order which may deem fit

and just in the facts and circumstances of the case

including award of the cost of the petition may be

given."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to serious

matrimonial disputes and continuous harassment, the petitioner has

been compelled to live separately from her husband, namely

respondent No. 5. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has

already instituted a petition seeking dissolution of marriage before the

competent Family Court. It is further submitted that respondent No. 5,

instead of following the due process of law, has been continuously

harassing the petitioner and subjecting her to mental as well as physical

torture. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 5 has also been

exerting undue pressure upon her to withdraw the legal proceedings

initiated before the Family Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent

No. 5 has been falsely implicating the petitioner by alleging that she has

an illicit relationship with one Satyavan, who is a married man. It is

contended that the said allegation has also been propagated by the wife

of Satyavan, namely respondent No. 4, along with respondent No. 6. It

is categorically submitted that there is no love affair or illegal

relationship between the petitioner and the said Satyavan and that all

such allegations are completely baseless and motivated. It is further

submitted that respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have initiated a deliberate

campaign to malign the reputation and character of the petitioner and

are continuously threatening and harassing her on the basis of

unfounded suspicions.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the wife

of Satyavan, namely respondent No. 4, has lodged a false and

fabricated complaint before the police authorities against the petitioner.

On the basis of the said complaint, the local police authorities are

allegedly calling the petitioner to the police station repeatedly and

subjecting her to harassment without conducting any preliminary inquiry

and without there being any incriminating material against her. It is

submitted that such conduct amounts to a violation of the petitioner's

fundamental right to live with dignity. It is further submitted that the

petitioner is being victimized by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as well as by the

arbitrary conduct of the police authorities, making it difficult for her to

live a peaceful and dignified life. According to the petitioner, the alleged

harassment by the private respondents along with the interference of

the police authorities amounts to a violation of her right to life and

personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

complaints made against the petitioner are malicious in nature and have

been lodged with the sole intention to tarnish her reputation and to

cause mental agony to her during the pendency of the divorce

proceedings. It is also contended that the police authorities are acting

beyond their jurisdiction by allegedly calling the petitioner to the police

station on the basis of mere matrimonial suspicions raised by one

person, namely Satyavan, without following the guidelines laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the interrogation and

summoning of women. It is further submitted that the petitioner is being

repeatedly called to the police station without issuance of any proper

notice and without following the procedure established by law.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the allegations

made in the writ petition are misconceived and devoid of merit. It is

submitted that the police authorities have only acted upon a complaint

received from respondent No. 4 and have undertaken necessary inquiry

in accordance with law. It is further submitted that no coercive action

has been taken against the petitioner and the police authorities have

acted strictly within the parameters of law while making inquiries into the

complaint received. He further submits that the present writ petition is

premature and not maintainable in the absence of any violation of

statutory provisions or fundamental rights.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully

perused the pleadings as well as the materials available on record.

9. From the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it

appears that the dispute between the parties primarily arises out of

matrimonial discord between the petitioner and respondent No. 5 and

the consequential allegations made by the private respondents. The

grievance of the petitioner essentially relates to alleged harassment by

the private respondents and the conduct of the police authorities in

calling the petitioner to the police station in connection with a complaint

lodged by respondent No. 4.

10. It is well settled that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is primarily meant to

address cases involving violation of fundamental rights or failure of

statutory authorities to discharge their legal duties. In the present case,

the allegations raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact

relating to personal and matrimonial disputes between the parties,

which cannot be appropriately adjudicated in exercise of writ

jurisdiction. Further, merely calling a person by the police authorities for

the purpose of inquiry pursuant to a complaint cannot, by itself, be said

to be illegal or arbitrary, particularly when no coercive action has been

taken against the petitioner. Such matters fall within the domain of the

investigating authorities and cannot ordinarily be interfered with by this

Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction unless a clear case of abuse of

process or violation of law is demonstrated.

11. This Court is of the considered opinion that the grievances raised

by the petitioner can be adequately addressed by availing appropriate

remedies before the competent forum in accordance with law.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering

the nature of the dispute involved, this Court does not find any ground

to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, the

petitioner shall be at liberty to avail such remedies as may be available

to her under the law before the appropriate authority or competent

Court, if so advised.

                             Sd/-                                Sd/-
                  (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                 (Ramesh Sinha)
                            Judge                            Chief Justice




Brijmohan