1 2025:CGHC:16161-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP(CR) No. 189 of 2025 Vinay Nelson S/o Late Virendra Nelson Aged About 30 Years R/o Firangipara, Ward No. 5, Kargi Road Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus Rajita Nelson W/o Late Virendra Nelson R/o Firangipara Kargi Road Kota, Halmukam- Near Tifra Bridge, Police Station- Sirgitti, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.). --- Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) For Petitioner : Dr. Arpit Lal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Dr. Arpit Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner. VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.04.11 13:08:46 +0530 2 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s): “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Complaint case bearing number MJC Criminal/ 745/2024 pending before JMFC, Bilaspur, District (C.G.). Bilaspur (C.G.). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order to restrain the respondent from filing further complaint against the petitioner in Court and Police Station. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order whereby the respondent may kindly be directed to return the ATM and Passbook of petitioner's father. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order whereby the respondent may kindly be directed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and lodging the FIR and Complaint case with malafide intention. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 3 4. Brief facts of this case are that the mother of the petitioner died in the year 2011 and subsequently, father of the petitioner married with the present respondent on 22.12.2013 and died in the year 2023. The present respondent is step mother of the petitioner. Petitioner is the only son in the family and two sisters of the petitioner are married. The petitioner is working a private jot in Bilaspur. After the death of the petitioner's father, the respondent along with her mother namely Rita Singh started harassing the petitioner for many things. Thereafter, the Petitioner made a written complaint to the Police Station about the cruel acts of the respondent along with her mother. Petitioner being aggrieved by the cruel acts of the respondent and with the apprehension that the respondent would implicate him in any false case as she previously threatened him, the petitioner made a detailed representation before the SP, Bilaspur asking for the protection from the false cases as such false cases would certainly affect his life and career. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the lodging of complaint case shows that it is a result of malafide intention and conspiracy to implicate the petitioner who has just started his career and wants to do something in life. From bare reading of the complaint case filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, clearly shows that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and no offence is made out against the petitioner. He would further submit that from the material available on record, it is glaring that respondent willfully left her matrimonial home and there is no domestic relationship between the petitioner and respondent as the petitioner used to live in Pune and 4 subsequently in Bilaspur. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint case bearing number MJC Criminal/745/2025 pending before the JMFC, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) may be quashed and the instant petition may be allowed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on perusal of the record, it reveals that the respondent has filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act against the petitioner and the trial Court has only issued notices to the petitioner. Therefore, the correctness and authenticity of the same cannot be gone into at this stage, it is a matter of merits of the case. The proceedings of a complaint case cannot be quashed at the threshold only on the mere say of the petitioner that in order to expel the petitioner from the house the allegations have been made. Quashing the proceedings of a complaint case at this stage would amount to stop the proceeding at the threshold to nip in the bud. In view of this we are not inclined to entertain this petition in exercise of power under writ jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Vasant