1 2025:CGHC:40350-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2514 of 2025 1 - Mukesh Rangari Son of Kanhaiya Lal Rangari, Aged About 46 Years Resident of Goutam Nagar, Village Lanjoda, Police Station Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kanhaiya Lal Rangari, Son of Late Sahdev Rangari, Aged About 72 Years Resident of Goutam Nagar, Village Lanjoda Police Station Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dinesh Rangari, Son of Kanhaiya Lal Rangari, Aged About 49 Years Resident of Goutam Nagar, Village Lanjoda, Police Station Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rishi Rangari, Son of Kanhaiya Lal Rangari, Aged About 38 Years Resident of Goutam Nagar, Village Lanjoda, Police Station Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Pushpanjali Rangari, D/o Kanhaiya Lal Rangari, Aged About 39 Years Resident of Goutam Nagar, Village Lanjoda, Police Station Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kondagaon, Thana, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Chhaya Devi, W/o Putti Lal, Aged About 64 Years Resident f 36 Para, Ward No. 17, Post Khadagpur, Police Station Khadagpur Town, District West Medinipur, West Bengal 721301. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.08.12 17:13:03 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.08 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms. Soumya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “A. That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to kindly quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings in Session Case No. 65/2024 pending before the Additional Session Judge [FTC] Kondagaon Chhattisgarh and related proceedings against the applicants, in the interest of justice. B. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned final report dated 26.08.2024 bearing No. 174/2024 under Section 304(B), 498(A), 34 of IPC prepared in Crime No. 111/2024 in the interest of justice. 3 C. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court finds deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the deceased, Vanni Rangari, aged about 37 years, died on 05.05.2022 due to “Pulmonary Edema and Hypoxia” (swelling in lungs), as per the postmortem report. Her mother, Smt. Chhaya Devi, alleged that the death was due to harassment and dowry demand by the petitioners. On 04.04.2024, nearly two years after the incident, an FIR (Crime No. 111/2024) was registered at Police Station Kondagaon on the directions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). Initially, a Merg No. 74/2022 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 09.05.2022. Medical examination at that time confirmed lung swelling as the cause of death and no poison was found in the viscera report dated 23.05.2022. The complainant alleged continuous harassment for dowry since marriage on 28.11.2010, including a prior incident in 2016 where the deceased was beaten and hospitalized, and an earlier FIR in West Bengal in 2018 under Sections 498, 323, and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), which was later compromised. A report dated 06.01.2023 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police stated that the death was due to illness, supported by statements of family members. Despite the said fact, FIR No. 111/2024 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 34 IPC was registered and the petitioners obtained anticipatory bail. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial is in advanced stage and as many as 06 prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court including the complainant. He further submits that the impugned registration of the criminal case and initiation of Sessions trial against the petitioners is wholly contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of nearly two years from the date of death of the deceased, without any plausible explanation for such delay. The Merg inquiry conducted immediately after the death had concluded that there was nothing to inculpate the petitioners. The cause of death was opined as “Hypoxia due to Pulmonary Edema”, and not due to any external factors or injuries. The allegations of demand of dowry and infliction of injuries are bald, baseless, and unsupported by any cogent material. It is submitted that the complainant has misused the process of law to settle personal scores against the petitioners. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel that the offence under Section 304-B IPC is inapplicable as the alleged incident occurred more than seven years after the marriage, whereas the statutory ingredients of the provision mandate proximity to the time of marriage. It is further urged that the prosecution material does not reveal any instance of cruelty or harassment “soon before death” as required under law to attract the offences alleged. The postmortem and FSL reports conclusively record that the death 5 was due to pulmonary complications, with no traces of poison found in the viscera. Therefore, no charges can be framed under the alleged provisions. It is further submitted that under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can only direct investigation, and not issue a blanket direction for registration of an FIR without due application of mind to the existing materials. The earlier criminal case lodged in West Bengal against the petitioners on similar allegations was also found to be false and ended in a compromise between the parties. Such conduct demonstrates the mala fides and ill will of the complainant. 6. It is further argued that the petitioners, having been granted anticipatory bail by both this Court as well as the Sessions Court, have cooperated fully with the investigation. Despite such cooperation, the investigation has yielded no evidence against them. In view of the absence of any incriminating material or substantive evidence, it is prayed that the continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law, and therefore the impugned criminal case is liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the FIR was registered pursuant to the order of the CJM under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after finding prima facie material. The delay in lodging the FIR is explained by initial police inaction and the complainant’s need to approach the court, which is not 6 fatal in dowry-related deaths. It is argued that the postmortem noting “Pulmonary Edema” does not rule out foul play, especially in light of bruising and bleeding recorded in the inquest. Allegations of repeated cruelty for dowry, including past incidents in West Bengal, show a continuing course of harassment. Whether cruelty occurred “soon before death” is a matter for trial, not quashing. The compromise in the earlier case does not absolve the petitioners, and Merg/FSL reports are only evidentiary pieces to be assessed during trial. Given the serious allegations and prima facie material, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Having considered the submissions of both sides, perused the record, and examined the nature of allegations and materials available, this Court is of the view that the grounds urged by the petitioners are premised upon disputed questions of fact which necessarily require appreciation of evidence. The postmortem report, inquest findings, and witness statements relied upon by the prosecution raise matters which are to be tested during trial. This Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, cannot conduct a meticulous examination of such evidence or record findings on their truthfulness at the pre- trial stage. 9. It is also relevant to note that the FIR was registered pursuant to an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., upon satisfaction of the existence of prima facie 7 material, and that the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. The delay in lodging the FIR, the earlier Merg inquiry, and the medical cause of death are all matters which, though significant, cannot be conclusively determined at this stage without the benefit of full evidence. 10. More importantly, the trial has already progressed to an advanced stage, and several witnesses have been examined. Interference by this Court at this juncture would not only disrupt the trial process but may also result in miscarriage of justice by foreclosing the prosecution’s right to present its case. The settled legal position is that where there exists a prima facie case and the trial is substantially underway, the High Court should refrain from exercising its extraordinary powers to quash proceedings, leaving the accused to raise their defence before the trial Court. 11. In these circumstances, this Court finds no ground to invoke its inherent powers to quash the proceedings. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, it is clarified that any observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding this petition and shall not influence the trial Court, which shall decide the matter on its own merits in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu