1 2025:CGHC:29700-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2034 of 2025 Om Prakash Gupta Son of Late Shri Jagannath Prasad Gupta, aged about 66 years, resident of House No. 103A, Anand Lok Colony, Mathiari Chinhat District Lucknow (U.P.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director General of Police Police Department, New Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Superintendent of Police Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Station House Officer Police Station Rakhi Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Kiran Gupta Daughter of Late Narsingh Prasad Gupta Aged About 53 Years Posted As Secretary, Chhattisgarh Rajya Laghu Vanopaj (Vyapaar And Vikas) Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, Vandhan Bhawan, Sector -24, Police Station Rakhi Raipur, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 4/ State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent Nos.1 to 5. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :- “(1) That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice. (2) That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR bearing No. 171/2023 registered on dated 28.09.2023 at police station Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh filed under section 506 of the I.P.C. in the interest of justice. (3) That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheet dated 19.05.2025 before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code in the interest of justice. (4) That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash cognizance dated 19.05.2025, taken by C.J.M. Raipur and all further proceeding of Criminal Case No. 26465/2025 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Raipur Chhattisgarh against the petitioner, in the interest of justice. (5) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly grant any other reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant has made complaint to the concerned Police Station, Rakhi Raipur with intend that the petitioner was solemnized marriage with the complainant in Arya Samaj Mandir, Aliganj, Lucknow on 3 04.04.2014. There was some family dispute arose between parties. According to prosecution story petitioner asked to the complainant to make payment of Rs. 50,000/- per month for his livehood and make entry of his name in her service book as nominee and on the basis of the letter send by the petitioner to the complainant on dated 03.08.2023, an FIR dated 28.09.2023 was got registered under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code by the complainant against the petitioner. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court against the petitioner on 19.05.2025. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the lodging of the FIR is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the instant case by the concerned respondents, there is no criminal background of the Petitioner. He further argued that without taking into consideration that on 04.04.2014, the petitioner solemnized marriage with complainant in Arya Samaj Mandir, Aliganj, Lucknow in the presence of two witness and after marriage the certificate was also obtained by the petitioner and when their family dispute arose between parties, the petitioner sent a letter to the complainant on 03.08.2023 to make payment Rs. 50,000/- per month for his livehood and nominate him in her service book or live with her as per marriage contract and failing which she, will has option to take divorce and return money of Rs. 40,000/- and 4 ornaments as well as house hold articles, but the complainant has refused to return such amount and ornaments and has falsely registered FIR against the petitioner without any sufficient reason and without thoroughly investigating the matter, police submitted the charge sheet before the learned competent Court against the petitioner on 19.05.2025 in very arbitrary manner and proceeding is going on and no charge has been imposed against the accused person. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned FIR as well as order taking cognizance dated 19.05.2025 and further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 26465/2025 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent opposes this petition and submit that since the charges have been framed against the petitioner, and the perusal of the materials on record discloses commission of cognizable offence, as such, no interference is warranted at this stage. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), 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 conferment of 5 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 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 merit. 8. It has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, that the proceedings relating to cognizable ofences cannot be interfered except on certain grounds enumerated by the Apex Court in the said judgment. It is evident that, none of the grounds mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment are attracted in the present case. In State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & others reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of cognizable ofence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR. Also what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. 9. From perusal of the contents of the FIR as well as in the charge- sheet, it transpires that there is specific allegation that the complainant has no legal and personal relationship with the petitioner and despite this, with an intention of tarnishing her reputation, the petitioner has corresponded with her departmental 6 senior officials and claims to be an Advocate in Lucknow and has again sent a letter dated 03/08/2023, though which the petitioner has demanded from the complainant to return Rs 50,000/- per month deposited in his account without any authority or relationship. By the said letter she has been intimidated and asked to return the jewelry and clothes. It is further alleged that by the said letter he has again stated false and baseless facts i.e. that she had married for the third time and had illegally adopted a child and in this way the petitioner is intimidating the complainant with the intention of extorting money from her and her body, reputation and property are being threatened by his actions. 10. On the basis of aforesaid allegation levelled against the petitioner, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner will have every opportunity before the learned Trial Court to rebut the allegations levelled against him. This Court cannot examine or appreciate the evidences that may be led before the learned Trial Court and stalling the trial would be wholly unjustiied. Further, in light of what has been said by the Supreme Court in Bhajanlal (supra) and Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra), there appears to be no good ground for quashing of the charge-sheet. 11. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra