1 2025:CGHC:45596 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 512 of 2021 1. Smt. Anita Pal W/o Vijay Pal, Aged About 31 Years (now aged about 39 years. 2. Sitaram Pal S/o Doktipal, Aged About 64 years (now aged about 72 Years) 3. Shivshankar Pal, S/o Doktipal, Aged About 60 Years (now aged about 4. Jitendra Pal, S/o Sitaram Pal, Aged About 26 Years (now aged about 34 years) All are R/o Village Chandradih, Police Station Uraon, District Baliya (U.P.), District : Ballia, Uttar Pradesh ... Petitioners versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 2. Vijay Pal S/o Chandrika Pal, Aged About 37 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, Railway Colony, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh)................(Complainant), ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 8/9/2025 1. This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) seeking quashment of SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 criminal proceedings registered as Complaint Case No.85/2015 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagdalpur, District Bastar for the offence under Sections 451, 323, 506 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that owing to matrimonial discord, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are residing separately since 2009 and thereafter, various proceedings have been initiated by them against each other in various Courts of law. Respondent No.2, by adopting revengeful attitude and with malafide intentions, filed malicious complaint under Section 200 CrPC before the Magistrate not only against his wife petitioner No.1 but also against her other family members. He submits that a false and malicious prosecution has been made against present petitioners without any incriminating material on record and all the family members of the wife i.e. petitioner No.1, have illegally been roped in criminal proceedings based on general allegations and no specific instance has been given by the complainant/respondent No.2 attributing the petitioners for making out a case of cognizable offence. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceeding against the petitioners is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction 3 under Section 482 of CrPC and quash the entire criminal proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposing submission of learned counsel for petitioners, would submit that on the face of record, prima facie, the complicity of petitioners in commission of cognizable offence as narrated in the complaint cannot be ruled out. It is further contended that innocence of present petitioners as is being tried to put forward before this Court by learned counsel for petitioners is a matter of trial and same cannot be interfered at this juncture in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. 4. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents annexed with petition. 5. From the facts delineated in the complaint filed under Section 200 CrPC by respondent No.2, it is appearing that respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 are husband-wife and out of their wedlock, one girl was born. Owing to matrimonial discord they are residing separately since 2009. It was alleged in the complaint that on 1.9.2012 at about 6:00 a.m. the petitioners herein forcefully entered house of respondent No.2, assaulted him, threatened him for life and also demanded back dowry given in marriage. Due to assaults, respondent No.2 sustained injuries on his head and other parts. Report of incident was lodged by him in concerned police station, but 4 the police instead of taking action against petitioners informed the respondent No.2 that allegations in complaint do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only non- cognizable office. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by inaction on the part of police authorities, respondent No.2 has approached the learned Magistrate with a prayer to take cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 506 of IPC against the petitioners. 6. In support of complaint, respondent No.2-complainant examined himself and an eyewitness Dharmendra Kashyap. Respondent No.2 deposed on the line of the version given in the complaint, whereas eyewitness Dharmendra Kashyap deposed that on the date of incident he was sitting in front of his house, at that time petitioners entered house of respondent No.2, abused and assaulted him as a result he sustained injuries. He went the house of respondent No.2 to intervene. Petitioners were repeatedly giving threat of life to respondent No.2. Police recorded his statement in which he narrated the entire facts. 7. Learned Magistrate vide order date 4.8.2015 after going through the contents of complaint, statement of complainant and his witness, who was an eyewitness of incident, arrived at a conclusion that allegations contained in the complaint prima facie constitute cognizable offence punishable under 5 Sections 451, 323, 506 of IPC against the petitioner and accordingly, ordered for registration of offence under aforementioned sections against them. 8. It is well settled that power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; when allegations in complaint clearly constitute cognizable offence, then quashing of FIR or criminal proceeding is not justified; the court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. If the allegation made in the complaint prima facie suggests that there can be a slightest possibility that the accused might have committed the offence alleged then he must stand trial and no order of quashment should be given while adjudicating matters of similar nomenclature. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Harayana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 in following paras has held as under: (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 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, 6 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 155(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 ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding 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 7 motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. In case at hand, in the complaint as also statement of complainant and his witness, who is an eyewitness, there are clear allegations against the petitioners herein of abusing, assaulting and threatening the complainant/respondent No.2. Complainant has clearly alleged that petitioners herein had entered his house and assaulted, regarding which report was lodged in concerned police station but no action was taken by police holding that allegations in complaint constitute only non-cognizable offence. Truthfulness or falsehood of allegations made by the complainant in his complaint are to be established by evidence to be produced before the Magistrate and only looking to allegations in complaint it cannot be inferred that prima facie no offence is made out against present petitioners. In fact, in the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations made in the complaint do clearly constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of offence against petitioners and this case does not fall under any of the categories of cases formulated above calling for the exercise of extraordinary or inherent powers of the High Court to quash the FIR itself. 11. At the time of registration of complaint and issuance of process, the Court has to consider whether there is material 8 to proceed and not to marshal the evidence to arrive that it will lead to conviction or not. After registration of complaint case, both parties will get an opportunity to examine and cross-examine the witnesses and base on the evidence to be recorded, learned Court after evaluating the same will pass final order/judgment. 12. For the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out for quashing of criminal proceeding. Resultantly, the petition under Section 482 CrPC sans substance and is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit. Sd-/ (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-