1 2025:CGHC:10983-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 824 of 2025 Sanjay Kumar Shrivas S/o Lakhan Lal Shrivas Aged About 42 Years R/o Parsabhantha Balco, Police Station Balco, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Of Police Station Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Saraswati Shrivas W/o Sanjay Kumar Shrivas Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Dongakohroud, Tahsil Pamgarh, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr.Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr.Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06.03.2025 1. Heard Mr.Bharat Lal Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1/State. 2. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Section 528 of BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.03.10 10:44:53 +0530 2 the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with following prayer:- “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR dated 19/11/2024 registered at Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) under Crime No. 902/2024 for the commission of offences punishable under Section 296, 351(2) and 115(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 lodged by complainant/respondent no.2 herein namely Smt. Saraswati Shrivas. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire charge sheet dated 21/11/2024 (Annexure-P/1) filed against the petitioner before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in pursuance of the Crime No. 902/2024 registered at Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the commission of offences punishable under Section 296, 351(2) and 115(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 lodged by complainant/ respondent no.2 herein namely Smt. Saraswati Shrivas. 3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to quash the Criminal Case/ proceeding registered bearing Criminal Case No. 1771/2024 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Sanjay Kumar Shrivas) pending before the Court of leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in pursuance of the Crime No. 902/2024 registered at Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the commission of offences punishable under Section 296, 351(2) and 115(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 lodged by complainant/ respondent no.2 herein namely Smt. Saraswati Shrivas. 3 4. Any other reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent no.2 herein lodged an FIR against the petitioner at Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) stating therein that on 19.11.2024 the petitioner has committed assault /marpit with her and also threaten to commit her murder and he refused to take her back at the matrimonial home as per the mutual agreement in the Court counseling proceeding. This incident was immediately reported by the complainant at Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and on the basis of the complaint, the concerned Police have registered the case against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2) and 115(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in respect of Crime No. 902/2024. 4. The concerned Police has filed the charge sheet dated 21.11.2024 against the petitioner before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in pursuance of Crime No. 902/2024 registered at Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for offences under Sections 296, 351(2) and 115(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 lodged by complainant/ respondent no.2 herein namely Smt. Saraswati Shrivas. Thereafter the concerned Court has started the Criminal Case/proceeding and registered the case bearing Criminal Case No. 1771/2024 (State of Chhattisgarh Va. Sanjay Kumar Shrivas) in pursuance of the Crime 4 No. 902/2024 registered at Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for the commission of offences punishable under Section 296, 351(2) and 115(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 lodged by complainant/ respondent no.2 herein namely Smt. Saraswati Shrivas. 5. The petitioner / accused is a husband of the complainant /respondent No.2 herein namely Smt. Saraswati Shrivas. The petitioner and complainant was solemnized their marriage as per the Hindu rites and customs at village Dongakouhroud, District janjgir- Champa (C.G.) on 06.05.2006. Thereafter, they resided together as husband and wife. They were living happily as husband and wife after their marriage and out of their wedlock, two sons namely Sourya and Soumya were born. After considerable long period of their marriage, some altercation in between the petitioner and complainant were arisen/started due to some small things. Due to the altercation in between the petitioner and complainant, the complainant / wife decided to live separately with two minor son from the petitioner and is residing separately at village Dongakohroud, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). The petitioner tried to come back his wife and live together, but he was failed do so and the wife instead of come back, lodged the various cases against the petitioner. The wife / complainant with two minor son filed an application under the provision of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa against the petitioner for seeking maintenance. The 5 matter was fixed on 19.11.2024 before the Family Court, Janjgir. District Janjgir-Champa, in which both the parties were agreed to live together during the Counseling proceeding and in pursuance of the Counseling proceeding, the petitioner and complainant were going to their home and at that time, the brother of the complainant started to quarrel and threaten to him and also threaten to commit his murder and this is a actual picture which was happened on the date of incident and this incident was immediately reported by the petitioner at Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and complainant also lodged the complaint at Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and the concerned Police has not registered the case in respect of the complaint of the petitioner, whereas registered the case against the petitioner in pursuance of the complaint of the respondent No.2 in respect of Crime No. 902/2024 for offences under Section 296, 351(2) and 115(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is total case of false implication and there is no any substance in the complaint of the complainant and no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and if the entire charge sheet may be taken as it is, no offences as alleged are made out against the petitioner and no ingredients of the offences as alleged are attracted in this case and prima facie it appears that wife has lodged the forged case against the petitioner. The petitioner tried to come back his wife and live together, but he was failed do so and the wife instead of come 6 back, lodged the various cases against the petitioner. He also submits that the brother of the complainant threaten to the petitioner on the date of incident and this incident was immediately reported, but the police have not registered the case in respect of the complaint of the petitioner. As such, the instant petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR and further proceedings deserve to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the FIR discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioner and as such, no interference is called for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR produced by the learned State counsel. 9. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers 7 under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 10. In the well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows: “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety to do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding 8 against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 11. In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill; reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi; reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors; reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Apex Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 9 12. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner relate to the questions of fact, and thus, can not be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS). The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 14. From the above stated case laws, it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can not be examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and 10 credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS). In view of the material on record, it can not be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 15. In the instant case, from the perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. The present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction to quash the impugned FIR and further proceedings. 16. In view of aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 17. The CRMP is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Bablu