1 2025:CGHC:32167-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1995 of 2025 1 Vijay Patle S/o Shri Balram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Sagounadih Police Station Pandariya District - Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 Smt. Phoolmati Patle W/o Vijay Patle Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Sagounadih Police Station Pandariya District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pandariya District - Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 Nihora Jangde S/o Late Sukalu Jangde Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Sakin Singhanpuri Jatri Police Station Kawardha District - Kabirdham (C.G.) (Complainant ) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.11 18:23:58 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11/07/2025 1. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 and in exercise thereof call for the records, if necessary, admit the petition and may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and to quashing of the FIR no. 394/2024 as well as charge sheet filed before the JMFC on 18.02.2025 and cognizance order dated 18.02.2025, for offence punishable under Section 296, 115 (2), 351 (3), 3 (5), 103(1), 49 of the B.N.S by the Police Station Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.), Cognizance Order (First Order Sheet) dated 18.02.2025 which is committed before the Second Additional Judge of the court of Additional Session Judge, Kabirdham Dist. Kabirdham (C.G) which is registered as Session trial no. 18/2025 and (if any), all consequent proceedings incidental & accidental thereto and orders prejudicial to the petitioners herein and/or pass such other orders in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem 3 it fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case in brief is that the on 23.11.2024 at around 11:00-12:00, the husband namely Umashankar of the deceased on instigation of his parents i.e. petitioner No. 1 & 2 beaten the deceased with fists, kicks and dragged her and thereafter the deceased taking mobile from her neighbour Roshni Patle informed her family members about the said assault. Subsequently, report was lodged by her bearing FIR No. 394/2024 against the accused Umashankar (husband), Vijay Patle (father-in-law) and Smt. Phoolmani Patle(mother-in-law) at police station Pandaria. Thereafter, during the treatment the deceased died on 25.11.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are falsely implicated. He further submits that the petitioners are old aged and there is no evidence against the present petitioners under Section 103 of BNS. He further submits that the present petitioners have not assaulted the deceased and prays for quashment of the FIR, charge-sheet and and further proceedings. 4. Per Contra, learned State counsel submits that the FIR was registered by the deceased herself in which particular allegation of instigation against the present petitioners were made. He further submits that in the case in hand, the charge-sheet has already 4 been filed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Prima-facie, this Court found that the deceased herself has lodged the report and perusal of report shows that particular allegations of instigation are made against the petitioners. Further, perusal of FIR shows that the cause of the fight after which the co-accused, who is the husband of the deceased, assaulted the deceased at the instance of his parents i.e. the present petitioners. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties; the allegations that the petitioners have instigated their son, who is the co-accused and which resulted in death of the deceased and the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed, as such, this Court does not find any good ground to quash the FIR, charge-sheet and further proceedings at this stage as it will prejudice the trial. 8. In that view of the matter, the CRMP is dismissed, at motion stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar