The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to challenge the adequacy or direction of a criminal investigation once a charge-sheet has been filed. This decision underscores the principle that judicial oversight of investigative processes must yield to the statutory trial mechanism when it is already underway.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Binda Bai Sahu, an illiterate rural woman aged about 60, is the lawful owner of land bearing Khasra No. 368/5 measuring 0.80 acre in Village Chikhali, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. She sought financial assistance under a government housing scheme and was introduced by her relative, Chetan Sahu, to respondent No. 5, Pawan Kumar Chouhan, who allegedly facilitated a bank loan. On the pretext of obtaining necessary documents for the loan, respondent No. 5 obtained the petitioner’s thumb impressions on blank papers. Subsequently, a registered sale deed of the said land was executed in favor of respondent No. 5 through a power of attorney holder, Kejuram, who had been authorized only for property maintenance, not for sale.
Key Facts
The petitioner never consented to the sale of her land or execution of any sale deed
A sum of Rs. 7,00,000 was deposited into the petitioner’s bank account and withdrawn using her thumb impression
The remaining sale consideration was allegedly misappropriated by respondent No. 5
The petitioner, unaware of the fraudulent transaction, lodged a complaint at Police Station Kotwali, Rajnandgaon
FIR Nos. 213/2023 and 215/2023 were registered under Section 420 IPC, treating the matter as a monetary dispute
The petitioner filed written complaints with higher police authorities, including the Inspector General on 01.05.2025
The Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, submitted a report dated 21.11.2025 concluding that the investigation was inadequate and that prima facie offences of forgery and fraud under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 3 of the Indian Penal Code were made out
This Court had previously, in M.Cr.C.A. No. 566/2024, directed the State to register offences against Kejuram for preparing forged documents
Despite these findings and judicial directions, no reinvestigation or additional charges were filed
Procedural History
2023: FIR Nos. 213/2023 and 215/2023 registered under Section 420 IPC
2024: Charge-sheets filed before the competent Magistrate Court
01.05.2025: Petitioner approached Inspector General of Police seeking reinvestigation
21.11.2025: Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, submitted report recommending reinvestigation for forgery and fraud
2026: Writ Petition No. 229 of 2026 filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
A writ of mandamus directing police authorities to conduct a fresh investigation into offences of forgery and fraud
Direction to file a supplementary challan after reinvestigation
Any other relief deemed appropriate in the interest of justice
The Legal Issue
Can a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution be maintained to seek reinvestigation or challenge the adequacy of a criminal investigation after a charge-sheet has been filed before a trial court?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the initial investigation was grossly inadequate, treating a serious case of forgery and fraud as a mere cheating case under Section 420 IPC. He relied on the report dated 21.11.2025 by the Superintendent of Police, which explicitly found that offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC were prima facie made out. He further cited this Court’s earlier direction in M.Cr.C.A. No. 566/2024 to register offences against Kejuram, which remained uncomplied with. He contended that the petitioner, being an illiterate woman, had no effective remedy other than approaching the High Court to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
For the Respondent
The State’s counsel submitted that FIRs had been duly registered and charge-sheets had been filed in 2024 before the competent trial court. The matter was therefore sub judice, and the petitioner had full statutory remedies available under Sections 156(3), 173(8), and 200 CrPC to raise grievances regarding the investigation before the Magistrate. The State argued that the writ court cannot act as a superintending authority over police investigations once the matter is before a trial court.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the petitioner’s grievance and the stage of the criminal proceedings. It noted that the dispute involved serious factual questions concerning the validity of the power of attorney, the authenticity of the sale deed, the extent of the petitioner’s consent, and the role of Kejuram - all of which require evidentiary adjudication. The Court emphasized that such issues cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction, which is not meant to function as an appellate or revisional forum over criminal investigations.
"Once the charge-sheet has been filed, the matter is now sub judice before the trial Court and the petitioner has adequate and efficacious remedy to raise all her grievances, including deficiencies in investigation, by invoking appropriate provisions of law before the jurisdictional Magistrate/trial Court."
The Court further observed that the petitioner’s dissatisfaction with the investigation, even if well-founded, does not transform the matter into one of violation of fundamental rights warranting writ intervention. The existence of statutory remedies under the CrPC, including the power of the Magistrate to direct further investigation under Section 173(8), renders the writ petition an inappropriate forum. The Court declined to interfere, citing the settled principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly when an alternative remedy exists.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner has an adequate and efficacious remedy before the trial court and declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction. No order as to costs was made. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue remedies under Sections 156(3), 173(8), and 200 CrPC before the Magistrate to seek reinvestigation or additional charges.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Alternative Remedy Bars Writ Intervention
Practitioners must advise clients to exhaust statutory remedies under CrPC before approaching High Courts under Article 226 for investigation-related grievances
A filed charge-sheet transforms the matter into a trial court domain; writ petitions seeking reinvestigation will be dismissed unless there is a clear violation of fundamental rights
The doctrine of alternative remedy remains a strong barrier to writ jurisdiction in criminal matters
Judicial Directions Must Be Enforced Through Proper Channels
Even when a High Court has previously directed action (e.g., registration of additional offences), compliance must be sought through the trial court or criminal revision, not fresh writ petitions
Failure to comply with judicial directions should be raised before the trial judge or through revision under Section 397 CrPC, not by reopening the matter in writ
Role of Police Reports in Writ Proceedings
Police reports recommending reinvestigation, while relevant, do not create a legal entitlement to writ intervention
Such reports may be used as evidence before the trial court to support an application under Section 173(8) CrPC
Courts will not substitute their opinion for investigative discretion once the process is statutorily underway
