SANJAY KUMAR JOSHI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010334062023 2026:CGHC:39172
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 8915 of 2023
 Sanjay Kumar Joshi S/o. Late Juguldas Joshi, Aged About 37
Years R/o.Ward No.10, Housing Board Colony Parsada Bharni,
Police Station -Sakri, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Arun Kumar Chandrawanshi, Constable No. 840, C/o. Additional
Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, Advocate
For Respondents No.1&2 : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, P.L.
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order On Board
07.09.2026
1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-
10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to order CG Police to initiate
Departmental enquiry against its employee
Private Respondent no.3, who permission to
marry Petitioner's wife even though he was
sought married to another women at that
time, and was allowed to live in Relationship
with Second Women i.e. Petitioner's wife
without getting divorce from first wife.

2
10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to order CG Police to compensate Rs
10 lakh only to Petitioner, as Respondent
no.3 being a Government servant is in live in
relationship with Petitioner's wife, by virtue of
permission given by CG Government under
rule 22 of CG civil service (Conduct) rule
1965
10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court
may deem and proper in the present
circumstances of the case.
2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner, who is a married
person is working on the post of Dog Trainer in the Police
Department and respondent No. 3 is working on the post of
Constable in the same department. On 05.07.2022, petitioner
returned home at 03:30 am after duty and found his wife and
respondent No. 3 in objectionable position. Petitioner made a
complaint at the concerned Police Station. Wife of the petitioner
appeared before the Thana In-charge, Sakri Police Station and
admitted that there was love affair between her and respondent
No. 3 and they want to reside together. Thereafter, petitioner
made a complaint before the police authorities to initiate
departmental inquiry against the respondent No. 3 alleging
bigamy.
3) Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that it is undisputed that respondent No. 3 entered into an
extramarital marriage with the petitioner’s wife despite being
married, thereby committing bigamy, however, no departmental
inquiry has been initiated against him. He further submits that

3
petitioner is entitled for compensation as his fundamental rights
have been infringed. He prays that a direction may be issued to
the respondent authorities to initiate departmental inquiry against
respondent No. 3 and grant monetary compensation to the
petitioner.
4) On the other hand, Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent No. 3 would oppose. He submits that there is
no material on record to establish that respondent No. 3 is guilty
of bigamy and the FIR registered u/s 294, 34,341 and 506 of IPC
against him has been quashed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in
CRMP No. 652 of 2024 and another connected matter vide
judgment dated 03.10.2024.
5) Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned State counsel submits that on the basis
of complaint made by petitioner, an inquiry was initiated against
respondent No. 3 wherein the Inquiry Officer summoned the
petitioner to record his statement. He further submits that
petitioner misbehaved with the Inquiry Officer and failed to record
his statement.
6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
7) Admittedly, there is allegation against the respondent No. 3 to the
effect that he performed marriage with the petitioner’s wife but there
is no material available on the record to presume it. As informed
by learned State counsel, in the inquiry initiated by the department

4
against the respondent No. 3, despite being called, petitioner
failed to record his statement and misbehaved with Inquiry Officer
and thus, did not cooperate in the inquiry. In my opinion, petitioner
should have filed a complaint case before the competent Criminal
Court under Section 494 of IPC.
8) In this writ petition, petitioner has sought a direction to the
respondent authorities to initiate departmental inquiry against the
respondent No. 3 but in absence of any material available on
record or any clinching evidence, such direction cannot be issued.
Furthermore, the FIR registered against the respondent No. 3 has
been quashed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in CRMP No. 652 of
2024 and another connected matter vide judgment dated
03.10.2024.
9) With regard to compensation, claim of petitioner appears to be
misconceived and if the petitioner is aggrieved by any action on
the part of respondents, he has the remedy to approach the
competent Civil Court claiming therein compensation etc.
10) In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am not inclined to grant any
relief as prayed for in the writ petition. Consequently, this writ
petition is dismissed. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
A j i n k y A
Digitally signed
by AJINKYA
PANSARE
Date:
2026.09.09
16:14:43 +0530