1 2025:CGHC:22346-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 1719 of 2025 1 - Hemant Kumar Mahant S/o Devachand Mahant Aged About 38 Years R/o Manjha Para, Chhind Kalo, Post Office- Darima, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Vimla Devi Mahant W/o Devchand Mahant Aged About 55 Years R/o Manjha Para, Chhind Kalo, Post Office- Darima, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Devchand Mahant S/o Late Dhannu Das Mahant Aged About 58 Years R/o Manjha Para, Chhind Kalo, Post Office- Darima, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Yamini Mahant D/o Devchand Mahant Aged About 40 Years R/o Manjha Para, Chhind Kalo, Post Office- Darima, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Dipti Mahant D/o Devchand Mahant Aged About 36 Years R/o Manjha Para, Chhind Kalo, Post Office- Darima, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Shashank Mahant S/o Devchand Mahant Aged About 30 Years R/o Manjha Para, Chhind Kalo, Post Office- Darima, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) ---- Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The SHO, Police Station- Sitapur, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Gulabi Das W/o Hemant Kumar Mahant Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Amatoli, Police Station- Sitapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) ---- Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS Software) For Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate. SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27.05.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quashed the F.I.R. registered on 01.12.2024 at police station Sitapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) in crime no. 349/2024 for the offence punishable 115(2), 296, 85 OF B.N.S., in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 12.6.2023 as per Hindu rites and rituals. There is one boy child from their wedlock. Petitioners No.2 & 3 are mother-in-law and father-in-law whereas, petitioners No.4 & 5 are sister-in-law and brother-in- law of respondent No.2. An FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 against the petitioners on 1.12.2024 alleging that she has been subjected to cruelty in connection with a demand for dowry. Specific allegations were made regarding the demand for an air conditioner and a car. It was also alleged that she was ousted from her matrimonial house along with her son in the month of April, 2024. On 26.8.2024, her in-laws reportedly approached her, and she was willing to return to her matrimonial house but 3 on the same date, she was allegedly assaulted by her husband. On such a complaint, the police registered an offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) against the petitioners. The petitioners have now filed the present petition seeking quashment of the FIR dated 1.12.2024, registered at police station Sitapur, District Sarguja. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that allegations made against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature, and no prima facie offence is made out. He would further submit that the petitioners neither harassed respondent No.2 nor made any demand for dowry. He would also submit that the essential ingredients of Sections 115(2), 296 and 85 of the BNS are absent. He would further argue that petitioner No.2 is currently pursuing her studies in Bilaspur whereas, petitioners No.5 & 6, who are doctors, who reside separately. Accordingly, he prays to quash the FIR. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He would submit that an FIR has been duly registered against the petitioners with regard to cruelty and demand of dowry, and the matter is presently under investigation. He would further submit that serious allegations have been leveled against the petitioners. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 6. The counsel appearing for the petitioners was given an option for mediation process but the same was refused. 7. Admittedly, the crime is still under investigation. At this stage, the genuineness or veracity of the allegations made in the FIR cannot be examined. A perusal of the FIR would reveal that there are serious allegations against the petitioners with regard to the demand of dowry. There are allegations with regard to cruelty too. 8. The legal position on the issue of quashing 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 investigation of cognizable offences. However, if the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed. 9. In a 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. The 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 5 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 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 6 wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 10. In the case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors., 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, the 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. 11. 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 the 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 7 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 merits. 12. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540, it has been held that probabilities of the prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise, the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance. The relevant passage reads thus: (SCCp. 550, para 11) "11......It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with." 13. Now coming to the facts of the present case in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners relate to the questions of facts. Further, the veracity or the genuineness of the allegations made against the petitioners cannot be examined at this stage. It is not the case of the petitioners that the FIR has been registered with mala fide intention with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance. 14. In view of the aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, is liable to be dismissed. 8 15. The CRMP is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Nimmi