1 2025:CGHC:12733-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 968 of 2025 Deepanshu @ Honey S/o Jairam Satnami Aged About 24 Years R/o B - Type, Godripara, Chirmiri, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh P.S. Chirmiri, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. K.N. Nande, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Nande, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.03.18 18:37:12 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR, No. 367 of 2023, dated 13.10.2023 offence under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC, impugned charge-sheet filed before the learned trial Court and order taking cognizance by the learned trial Court i.e. Additional Session Judge, Chirmiri in Session Trial Case No. 15 of 2025 which is pending for trial of the case to secure the ends of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.10.2023, ward boy, namely, Duryodhan of the Regional Hospital, Chirmiri lodged the merg intimation in Police Station Chirmiri on the basis of which, FIR bearing No. 367 of 2023 was registered against the present petitioner, namely, Deepanshu @ Honey and other three co-accused persons who are juvenile. It is alleged that on 08.10.2023 at about 4.00 p.m., deceased, Vaibhav Singh was attacked by the present petitioner and other three co-accused persons at Godripara, Near Zero Cafe, Chirmiri because deceased confronted one of the juvenile about abusing his girlfriend, who is also juvenile. It is alleged that the deceased was under acute mental agony and has committed suicide on 09.10.2023 in his house by hanging, thereby the offence has been committed by the present petitioner and other three co-accused person. After investigation, the Police Station Chirmiri has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chirmiri against the petitioner only as the other three co- 3 accused, who are juvenile, therefore, the Police Station Chirmiri has excluded the name of the minor accused persons. The charge-sheet has been filed against the minor accused before the Juvenile Court, Baikunthpur which is pending under consideration. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He would further submit that the incident took place on 08.10.2013 whereas FIR was lodged on 13.10.2023, thus there was delay of 05 days in lodging the FIR and for that no explanation has been given by the complainant. He further submits that the prosecution has cooked up a concocted story against the petitioner just to harass and implicate in the crime in question. The present petitioner and the deceased were not known to each other, even at the time of suicide the petitioner was not present there. He also submits that the mother of the deceased Smt. Reena Singh herself admitted and contended in Police Station statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that the deceased was committed suicide on refusal to give the key of the motorcycle to the deceased, thus, from the perusal of the statement, it is ample clear that the petitioner has not provoked the deceased for committing suicide. He also states that from perusal of the Police statement of the close relative of the deceased, there is no prima facie case against the petitioner and even, the other witnesses were not stated any adverse contentions against the petitioner. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from bare perusal of the FIR, ingredient of abatement as provided in Section 107 of the IPC is not available which is main ingredient to attract Section 306 of the IPC. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel 4 for the petitioner would refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618. 6. On the other, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the investigation has been done strictly in accordance with law and after completion of investigation the final report/charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court and the learned trial Court had already taken the cognizance of the offence and the trial is in progress. He further submits that the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is perfectly made out inasmuch as it was the present petitioner who along with other three co-accused persons have assaulted the deceased because deceased confronted one of the juvenile about abusing his girlfriend and the said girlfriend of the deceased also stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that the present petitioner along with other three co-accused persons verbally abused and physically assaulted the deceased, upset by the said incident, deceased committed suicide by hanging himself at his residence on 09.10.2023. He also submitted that so far as the statement of the mother of the deceased recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned she came to know about the real facts subsequently. Hence, the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the present petitioner. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings 5 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 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. 9. In the present case, admittedly, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the evidences and upon finding prima facie evidence regarding commission of offence the trial has been initiated against the petitioner. 10. From perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet and order taking cognizance, it transpires that present petitioner along with other three co-accused persons who are juvenile have assaulted the deceased because one of the juvenile asked the girlfriend of the deceased ‘as to why she was friendly with deceased and told her to be friendly with him instead, he even abused her verbally’, therefore, on 08.10.2023, the deceased objected the juvenile about abusing his girlfriend due to which the present petitioners along with other three co-accused, who are juvenile have verbally abused and physically assaulted the deceased, upset by the said incident, deceased committed suicide by hanging himself at his residence on 09.10.2023. The girlfriend of the deceased also stated about the said incident in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., 6 therefore, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS and the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable from the present case. 11. In view of the above, we do not find it a fit case to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 367 of 2023 dated 13.10.2023, charge-sheet No. 213 of 2024 dated 15.10.2024 filed by the Police Station Chirmiri, District Manendargarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) and the order taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC and the consequential criminal proceedings bearing Session Trial No. 15 of 2025 pending before the trial Court, as such, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan