1 2025:CGHC:33962-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 12 of 2023 1. Praveen Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Late Shri Badri Prasad Bhardwaj Aged About 40 Years R/o Prabhat Chowk, Chigraj Para, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Beda Bai W/o Late Shri Badri Prasad Bhardwaj Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Uchchbhatti, Police Station Sipat, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Mahila Thana Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Nandani Bhardwaj D/o Shri Jageshwar Suryawanshi Aged About 27 Years R/o Uraihapara, Baima Nagoi, Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.18 18:50:25 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: “(i) allow the instant petition, (ii) quash the FIR No. 69 of 2021 dated 21.09.2021 registered at Mahila Thana, Bilaspur and consequently the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 7367 of 2021 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.). (iii) discharge the petitioners from the offence punishable under Section 498A, 34 of the IPC in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/complainant, who is wife of petitioner No.1 has on or about 21.09.2021 submitted a lengthy complaint before the respondent No. 1 for lodging FIR against her husband and mother-in-law/petitioner No. 2 stating that her marriage was solemnized on 11.05.2014 with petitioner No.1 as per social customs and 3 from their wedlock one son named Shrestha Bhardwaj was born. After the marriage, she came to her in-laws village Uchchabhatti, Sipat Bilaspur, where everything went well for about a few months. The respondent No.2/wife further stated in complaint that after about 08 months of marriage, she alongwith petitioners came to live in Chingrajpara Sarkanda, Bilaspur where there was no appliance for domestic use, for which petitioners started torturing her for bringing household items, motorcycle from her maternal home. While in marriage her father had given household items like Colour TV, cupboard, fan, cycle, bed, dressing table, tea table etc. and a silver anklet in jewellery in gift according to his ability. The petitioners used to harass her all the time by saying that according to their wishes, she has not brought sufficient goods in dowry. They used to taunt her that after marriage they have taught her and have invested money in her studies, if she does not get a government job as soon as possible, then earn money from somewhere else. If she does not bring money after earning, she will be divorced, used to fight by saying. When she was pregnant, she was thrown out of the house by petitioners on the grounds that they could not bear the cost of her delivery, petitioner No. 1 left her at her maternal home because of her ill health. All the expenses of her delivery were borne by her father. All the family members of her family was used to abuse by petitioners. Her husband used to fight/abuse her for dowry/household items after coming in the words of her mother-in-law. The respondent No. 2/wife further complained that they have been married for 07 years, she kept on tolerating the harassment of petitioners that one day everything will be fine. Her maternal family members had tried their best to explain a lot to petitioners, 4 but there was no improvement in the behavior of petitioners and they used to physically and mentally torture her by abusing and beating her for small things. She has been physically and mentally harassed by the behavior of petitioners. For the last two months, she is living in her maternal home. Thereafter, after receiving the above complaint, the respondent No.1/Mahila Thana made counselling between the parties, but after failure of counselling dated 21.09.2021, FIR bearing Crime No. 69 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the IPC has been registered against the petitioners. During investigation petitioners were arrested by the Police on 05.10.2021 and they have been granted regular bail by the learned trial Court. After investigation, the respondent No.1 submitted charge-sheet No. 71 of 2021 on 18.11.2021 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. After filing of charge-sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur vide order-sheet dated 13.12.2021 registered the case vide Criminal Case No. 7367/2021 and further fixed the date of 14.02.2022 for argument before charge. Thereafter, on 14.02.2022, the learned trial Court heard argument and framed charges under Section 498A/34 IPC against the petitioners which they denied their crime and sought trial. The petitioners also rejected the entire documents produced by the prosecution under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 12.05.2022, the case is fixed for prosecution evidence, but the prosecution witnesses were absent, hence, again issued summons and the learned trial Court further fixed the date of 17.08.2022 for prosecution evidence. On 17.08.2022 again the prosecution witnesses were absent, so again summons were 5 issued and the next date of 20.10.2022 was fixed for prosecution evidence and again on 20.10.2022, the learned trial Court issued summons to witnesses and the date of 22.12.2022 was fixed for prosecution evidence. He further submits that from perusal of the order- sheets and the dates fixed by the learned trial Court again and again due to absence of prosecution witnesses, it would be clear that the sole purpose of the prosecution witnesses (who are complainant and her family members) is to prolong the trial and to harass the petitioners financially and mentally, as almost 03 years have been elapsed since the learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioners, but the evidence has not commenced so far. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaints being false and concocted, the submission of above facts, circumstances it would be clear that these petitioners have been falsely implicated just to please the complainant party. Hence, dragging the petitioners falsely in the criminal prosecution and continuation of the proceedings in the above crime will cause miscarriage of justice and amount to sheer wastage of time and money and would unnecessarily strain the financial, administrative and financial resources of the State. Hence, this petition for quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the two prosecution witnesses have already been examined by the learned trial Court and the trial is in progress. 7. We have perused the prayers and pleadings made in the petition along with the annexures annexed in this petition. 6 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case that the charges have already been framed against the petitioners and two prosecution witnesses have already been examined by the learned trial Court and the trial is in progress, therefore, at this stage, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Further, it is also evident that no interim order has been passed in favour of the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed on this ground alone. However, we hope and trust that the learned trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan