1 2025:CGHC:37867-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1852 of 2023 Pushpanjali Purabiya D/o Late Shri Dhanraj Purabiya, aged about 25 years R/o House No. D-8, Radha Swami Nagar, Bhatagaon Chowk, Police Station- Purani Basti, Raipur, Tehsil and District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Kabir Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur- (C.G.) 2 - Akshay Harit S/o Shri Ishwari Prasad Harit, aged about 31 years R/o House No.- 10, Harshit Nagar, Mahoba Bazar, Tatibandh, Police Station- Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil and District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Soumya Sharma For Respondent No.2 : None appears though notice has been served _________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01 .0 8 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Soumya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State / respondent No.1. 2. As per office note dated 30.07.2025, notice has already been served upon the respondent No.2, but none appears to contest this petition on his behalf. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 3. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’) seeking quashment of F.I.R, entire charge-sheet dated 09.05.2023, subsequent criminal proceedings registered as Criminal Case No. 9491/2023 initiated against the present petitioner and memo dated 24.06.2022 issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (Annexure-P/1), whereby the learned JMFC has directed the police authorities for registration of the FIR against the present petitioner and her father namely Late Shri Dhanraj Purabiya, for committing the offence punishable under section 384, 387, 420, 467, 468, 471, 494 r/w section 34 of Indian penal Code. 4. 4. The fact of the case, in a nutshell, is that the marriage between petitioner and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 08.12.2018 with the mutual consent of both the parties and their families and they were residing together peacefully, however on account of matrimonial quarrels and day to day fight, the respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act of 1955’) for declaring the marriage as null and void before 2nd Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Raipur on the ground that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and respondent No.2 on 08.12.2018 as per Hindu rituals with the consent of the families and the same was duly registered on 09.01.2019. It was further alleged that on 25.05.2019, the respondent No. 2 came to know that the petitioner was already married to one Bhupendra Kumar Sonker 3 on 16.08.2013 and hiding this very fact petitioner gave effect to the present marriage with respondent No. 02. On the application of the respondent No.2, the case was registered as H.M.A. Case No. 562 of 2019. 5. In reply to the application filed under section 11, the petitioner filed her written statement on 16.03.2020. In the written statement the petitioner has specifically denied the allegations made by the respondent No. 2 and averred in the written statement that the fact about the marriage of petitioner with the Bhupendra Kumar Sonkar was revealed prior to marriage to the respondent No.2 and with his family members and it was also informed that mutual divorce has already taken place between the petitioner and Bhupendra Kumar Sonkar. 6. During the pendency of the matter before the Family Court, Raipur an application for mutual divorce on the basis of compromise agreement was filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 jointly on 12.02.2021. In the said application, it has specifically been pleaded that since 01.04.2019 the petitioner and respondent No.2 are residing separately and not living as husband and wife and further it was stated that they are willing to get separated mutually and they will not enter into any kind of court cases against each other. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances that a joint application has been filed by the petitioner and respondent No.2 for declaring the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.2 as null and 4 void, the learned Family Court, Raipur has passed the judgment & decree on 23.11.2021 declaring their marriage as null and void. Copy of the judgment & decree dated 23.11.2021 is filed as Annexure -P/5. 8. Suppressing all the above mentioned facts, the respondent No.2 has filed an application under section 156(3) of CrPC for registration of FIR against the petitioner and her father namely Late Shri Dhanraj Purabiya, alleging that without disclosing the fact the petitioner was married to one Bhupendra Kumar Sonker on 16.08.2013, conspired in a well-planned manner by pretending her to be unmarried and get married to the present respondent No.2 and thereby the marriage between the petitioner & respondent No.2 amounts to fraud committed against the respondent No.2. The petitioner replied to the application filed by the respondent No.2 under section 156(3) and has denied with the allegations and stated that the fact that the petitioner was once married to one Bhupendra Kumar Sonker and subsequently divorce with their mutual consent has already been taken place on 18.11.2013, was very well known to the respondent No. 2 and his family members. 9. Without considering the above mentioned facts, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, has passed the order dated 24.06.2022 directing Station-in-charge of Police Station Kabir Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh to register a criminal case against the petitioner and the father of the petitioner 5 for offence punishable under section 384, 387, 420, 467, 468, 471, 494 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. In compliance of the order dated 24.06.2022, an FIR was registered at Police Station Kabir Nagar, District Raipur against the petitioner and her father for committing the offence punishable under section 384, 387, 420, 467, 468, 471, 494, 34 of the Indian Penal Code without considering the entire fact that a compromise decree (on the basis of compromise agreement annexed here with as (Annexure - P/10) declaring marriage of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 as null & void has already been Family Court, Raipur, the police authorities have filed the final report on 09.05.2023 and subsequently the criminal proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and the father of the petitioner. Hence, the present petition. 10. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 24.06.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Raipur is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law and liable to be set-aside. He further submits that the learned JMFC, Raipur has wrongly appreciated the facts of the application filed u/S 156(3) that the parties have entered into compromise before the Family Court and thereafter, the application U/s 11 of Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and the marriage was declared as null & void and has erroneously directed the police authorities to register the FIR against the present petitioner and co-accused namely Late Shri Dhanraj Purabiya. He contented that the 6 contents of the compromise clearly states that the parties are not going to have any kind of dispute in future and therefore, they have settled their disputes amicably vide compromise deed dated 12.02.2021. He further contended that the learned JMFC, Raipur has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction under section 156(3) of CrPC without taking into consideration that the respondent No. 02 has already filed the complaint on same set of facts and allegations and the same was duly compromised between the parties and was taken note by the Family Court while deciding the application under section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act and has further failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent No. 2/complainant has suppressed the fact in his application under Section 156(3) CrPC that the compromise deed has been executed between both the parties and the same has been filed before the Family Court, Raipur. 11. On the other hand, Ms. Soumya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 13. The Supreme Court in the mater of Bhajan Lal (supra) laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court 7 or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: - “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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, 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 8 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 motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 14. The principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) has been followed recently by the Supreme Court in the matters of Google India Private Limited v. Visaka Industries1, Ahmad Ali 1 (2020) 4 SCC 162 9 Quraishi and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another2 and Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and others3. The Supreme Court in Google India Private Limited (supra), explained the scope of dictum of Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and “that too in the rarest of rare cases” as indicated in paragraph 103 therein of the report. 15. The The Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma (supra) held as under:- “35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Code, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Kal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was held as under:- “29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching 2 (2020) 13 SCC 435 3 (2019) 18 SCC 191 10 consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under 11 Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 12 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 16. The Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others4 has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. The Supreme Court has emphasised that though the court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 17. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and respondent No.2 on 4 2021 SCC Online SC 315 13 08.12.2018 as per Hindu rituals with the consent of the families and the same was duly registered on 09.01.2019. It further transpires that on 25.05.2019, the respondent No. 2 came to know that the petitioner was already married to one Bhupendra Kumar Sonker on 16.08.2013 and hiding this very fact petitioner gave effect to the present marriage with respondent No. 02, filed an application under Section 11 of the of Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court. During the pendency of the matter before the Family Court, Raipur an application for mutual divorce on the basis of compromise agreement (Annexure-P/10) was filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 jointly on 12.02.2021. In the said application, it has specifically been pleaded that since 01.04.2019 the petitioner and respondent No.2 are residing separately and not living as husband and wife and further it was stated that they are willing to get separated mutually and they will not enter into any kind of court cases against each other. Considering the facts and circumstances that a joint application has been filed by the petitioner and respondent No.2 for declaring the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.2 as null and void, the learned Family Court, Raipur has passed the judgment & decree on 23.11.2021 declaring their marriage as null and void. It also transpires that the learned JMFC, Raipur has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction under section 156(3) of CrPC without taking into consideration that the respondent No. 02 has already filed the complaint on same set of facts and allegations and the same was duly compromised between the parties and was taken 14 note by the Family Court while deciding the application under section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act and has further failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent No. 2/complainant has suppressed the fact in his application under Section 156(3) CrPC that the compromise deed has been executed between both the parties and the same has been filed before the Family Court, Raipur. 18. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) of CrPC are inherently improbable and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the petitioner herein. In the case in hand, malicious prosecution was instituted by the respondent No.2. 19. For the foregoing discussion, the instant petition is allowed and the final report dated 09.05.2023, the criminal proceedings registered as Criminal Case No. 9491/2023 and memo dated 24.06.2022 issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (Annexure-P/1) are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra