1 2025:CGHC:37126-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2357 of 2025 Devjeet Singh S/o Shri Ramnath Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Jatro Ps Balrampur District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balrampur District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 2 - Dilip Singh S/o Late Ramlagan Singh Aged About 54 Years Caste Mar, Village Obri PS Balrampur District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30 .07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.30 18:18:00 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to allow the application by making an order to quash the crime no. 166/2024 dated 08.11.2024 offence u/s 108, 3(5) of BNS Act & quash the final report dated 29.12.2024 and order dated 18.03.2025 and also quash the entire criminal proceeding pending before Session Judge as Session Trail No. 46/2025, offence u/s 108, 3(5) of BNS Act and discharge from the case to the applicant.” 3. Brief facts of the case, are that the deceased, Chanchala Singh, and the petitioner's brother, Sonu Singh, were in a romantic relationship. However, Sonu Singh later refused to marry her, leading Chanchala Singh to file a complaint alleging sexual exploitation under the false promise of marriage. Based on her complaint, an FIR was registered against Sonu Singh. Thereafter, disputes arose between them, and Sonu Singh eventually fixed his marriage with another girl. This led to frequent quarrels between the two. On the night of 05-06.11.2024, Chanchala Singh went missing from her home. Her father, Dilip Singh, lodged a missing report. It was later discovered that she had posted an Instagram status alleging that Sonu Singh and his elder brother (the petitioner) had beaten and threatened her. On 08.11.2024, 3 her dead body was found floating in a well. The deceased was also posted a message in her Instagram account that she was beaten and threatened by Sonu Singh and his elder brother i.e. the present petitioner. Based on the complaint, FIR No. 166/2024 was registered against the petitioner and other co-accused under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’). Thereafter, a charge sheet was later filed against the petitioner as an absconder. Sonu Singh applied for bail before this Court by filing MCRC No. 3953/2023. Notice was served to Chanchala Singh, who appeared before the Court and raised an objection to the grant of bail. Consequently, bail was rejected on 25.07.2023. 4. Aggrieved by the registration of FIR and filing of charge sheet in Session Trial No. 46/2025 arising out of Crime No. 166/2024, the petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking quashment of the entire criminal proceedings. 5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the FIR No. 166/2024 registered at Police Station Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), and the consequent charge sheet filed in Session Trial No. 46/2025 are nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law, initiated with a malicious intent to harass the petitioner, who has been falsely implicated merely due to being the elder brother of co-accused Sonu Singh. It is submitted that the FIR is an afterthought, 4 concocted out of vendetta and vengeance, without any material basis, and lodged only after the tragic death of the deceased Chanchala Singh. The FIR is bereft of specific, material, and cogent particulars and makes vague and bald allegations unsupported by any credible evidence. The deceased never lodged any complaint against the petitioner during her lifetime, though she was educated and capable of approaching legal forums. It has been contended that the FIR, on the face of it, lacks the essential ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS. There is no overt act, no incitement, and no active participation on part of the petitioner which could even remotely constitute abetment to suicide as defined under Section 107 of the BNS. The petitioner is not alleged to have any direct interaction or altercation with the deceased proximate to the alleged incident. In fact, he resides separately and has no role in the relationship or personal affairs between his brother Sonu Singh and the deceased. The only reference made against the petitioner is a vague Instagram status allegedly posted by the deceased, which cannot be relied upon as substantive evidence in absence of corroboration. It is further submitted that the registration of FIR and filing of charge sheet have been done in complete violation of procedural safeguards and guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. No preliminary inquiry was conducted, no notice was issued under Section 41A of the Code 5 of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to present his case before being declared an absconder. Even if the entire charge sheet and material collected during the investigation are accepted at face value, they do not disclose the commission of any offence under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS. The absence of mens rea, absence of instigation, and absence of any direct or indirect act on part of the petitioner that could drive the deceased to commit suicide clearly negate the applicability of the charged offences. Reliance is placed on the following authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: • Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 873, wherein the Apex Court held that emotional or sentimental reaction leading to suicide, in absence of direct incitement or intentional instigation, cannot amount to abetment. • M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626, wherein the Apex Court has held that there must be a clear mens rea and a direct or active act leading to suicide to attract abetment charges. • Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., (1995) Supp (3) SCC 438, wherein the Apex Court ruled that casual remarks or quarrels cannot be treated as acts of abetment. 6 • Kanchan Sharma v. State of U.P., AIR 2021 SC 4343, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that mere harassment or strained relationships, without any proximate cause, cannot amount to abetment of suicide. 6. In light of the above, it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to collect any evidence indicating goading, provocation, or intentional instigation on part of the petitioner. Hence, continuation of the proceedings would be a miscarriage of justice and an abuse of the process of law, as such, this Court be quashed the FIR No. 166/2024, charge sheet, and entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in pursuance to Session Trial No. 46/2025, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 582 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) / 482 Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the FIR discloses specific allegations against the petitioner, including a reference in the deceased's Instagram post that she was beaten and threatened by Sonu Singh and the petitioner. This aspect, being part of the investigation, cannot be ignored at the threshold. The allegations, though denied by the petitioner, raise serious issues which require trial and adjudication based on evidence, and not at the stage of quashment. The veracity of the allegations cannot be tested under Section 528 of 7 BNSS / 482 Cr.P.C. The investigation has culminated in the filing of a charge sheet, and the same contains statements and materials which prima facie connect the petitioner to the incident. It is settled law that detailed scrutiny of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing. As such, the petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed in view of the settled principle that quashing of proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where continuation would amount to abuse of process of law and accordingly, it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available with the instant petition. 9. Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon thorough perusal of the case record, including the contents of the FIR, charge sheet, and material collected during investigation, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS / 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR or the criminal proceedings at this stage. 10. It is significant to note that the deceased, prior to her death, had posted a status on her Instagram account, categorically alleging that she was beaten and threatened by Sonu Singh and his elder brother, who is the present petitioner. This post forms part of the 8 record and cannot be brushed aside as it directly implicates the petitioner. The said status, coupled with the other statements recorded during the investigation, prima facie suggest the petitioner’s involvement and raise serious factual questions which can only be decided during the course of trial upon appreciation of evidence. 11. Further, it is also not in dispute that the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner by the investigating agency treating him as an absconder. The fact that the petitioner has evaded due process and has been declared an absconder by the investigating agency further militates against the exercise of discretion under Section 528 of BNSS / 482 Cr.P.C., which is meant to prevent abuse of process of law, not to defeat legitimate prosecution proceedings. 12. Whether the said acts amounted to instigation or abetment, and whether the ingredients of the offences under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS, are ultimately made out, are matters which require adjudication on evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 of BNSS / 482 Cr.P.C. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that the power under Section 528 of BNSS / 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection, particularly 9 where disputed questions of fact and evidence are involved. In the present case, the allegations in the FIR, coupled with the Instagram post and the investigation materials, do prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences and hence, warrant a full-fledged trial. 14. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observations made herein are only for the purposes of adjudicating this petition under Section 528 of BNSS / 482 Cr.P.C. and shall not prejudice the petitioner in any manner during trial. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all grounds available to him in accordance with law before the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu