1 2025:CGHC:43808-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2697 of 2025 1 - Yuvraj Sahu S/o Shri Bhuneshwar Sahu Aged About 21 Years 2 - Bhuneshwar Sahu S/o Lt. Shir Rakhiram Sahu Aged About 45 Years 3 - Anita Sahu W/o Bhuneshwar Sahu Aged About 42 Years 4 - Pannu Ram Sahu S/o Lt. Shri Rakhiram Sahu Aged About 38 Years 5 - Kanta Prasad Sahu S/o Lt. Shri Rakhiram Sahu Aged About 40 Years All R/o Vishrampuri Bazarpara P.S. Vishrampuri Distt.- Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station- Pharasgaon, Distt.- Kondagaon (C.G.) 2 - XYZ (Details Of The Complainant Is Provided In Closed Envelope) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr.Pragalbh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Ms.Saumya 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 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.08.29 17:31:56 +0530 2 29.08.2025 1. Heard Mr.Prabalbh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms.Saumya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1/State. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners with following prayer: “1) To quash impugned F.I.R. No. 156/2024 (part of Annexure P/1) registered at the P.S.-Pharasgaon, Distt. Kondagaon (C.G.) against the petitioner U/s 108 of B.N.S.; 2) To kindly be pleased quash the impugned Chargesheet No. 01/2025 dated 05.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) filed the respondent no.1 U/s 108, 64(2)(f)(m) R/w 3(5) of B.N.S. and U/s 4 & 6 of POCSO Act (section 64(2)(f)(n) is wrongly mentioned in chargesheet as well as in ordersheet of trial court) against the petitioner;” 3) To kindly be pleased to 'quash of impugned order dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure P/2) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC(POCSO) District- Kondagaon (C.G.) has taken cognizance of the impugned chargesheet and the impugned criminal case is registered as Special (Rape) Case No. 01/2025 for further trial and to quash all the subsequent proceedings (if any) initiated against the petitioner on the basis of impugned FIR No. 08/2025. 4) And/or any other relief/ relief's which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be also granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.10.2024 father of the deceased, came to the police station and a death intimation registered, that her daughter has committed suicide by hanging herself on 23.10.2024 at 11.50 A.M. He further disclosed that she had committed suicide because she was upset with petitioner No.1 (Yuvraj Sahu) as they both were in a love relationship from last 06 years and when he refused to marry her, she committed suicide by hanging herself in his house. Merg intimation was registered on the above information which was registered as 100/2024 under Section 194 BNSS. During the investigation it was found in the CDR (Call Details) that Yuvraj Sahu was talking to the deceased from his Mobile No. 7000359974, continuously for 27959 times on her Mobile No. 7000669629. 4. Further in the entire inquest investigation, on the basis of the statement of the witnesses and other evidences like private photos & videos, it was revealed that Yuvraj was in a physical relationship, with the deceased knowing her to be a minor and cheated her by refusing her to marry, due to fear of public condemnation and harassment, she committed suicide in her room by hanging herself with her dupatta. On the basis of said investigation, the police of Police Station-Pharasgaon, District- Kondagaon, registered the FIR in Crime No. 156/2024, dated 23.10.2025 under Section 108 B.N.S., 2023. 5. During the course of investigation, on the basis of statements of witnesses and other evidence, Sections 64(2)(m) r/w Section 3(5) 4 B.N.S. and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act were also added in the said crime. Furthermore, it was also found that a meeting took placed at one Sukhnandan Sahu's house, where other petitioners No. 2 to 5 threatened the deceased and it was said to her that, she is falsely implicating petitioner No.1, there was no such relationship between them, and as such he is not liable to marry her, and if she wants to, she can prosecute them and send them jail and such words had humiliated her and forced her to commit suicide, and on the basis of same the petitioners were arrested by the investigating authority and the impugned Chargesheet No. 01/2025 dated 05.01.2025 filed by respondent No.1 under Section 108, 64/2)(f(m) R/W 3(5) of BNS the and under Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act (section 64/2)((n) is wrongly mentioned in chargesheet as well as in ordersheet of trial court), against the petitioners, by way of impugned order dated 06.01.2025, learned Additional Sessions Judge FTSC(POCSO) District Kondagaon (C.G.) has taken cognizance of the impugned chargesheet and the impugned criminal case is registered as Special Case No. 01/2025 and the petitioners have been enlarged on the bail in said crime number, whereas the true facts of the case are that, it is the family members of the deceased and the complainant/Father of the victim who had come to know about the relationship between the deceased and petitioner No.1, and then he called for the said meeting, wherein they had tormented their own daughter/deceased. In absence of any specific and precise 5 allegation of abetment to commit suicide or physical assault, the impugned continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR does not disclose any offence against the petitioners, even if the same is taken in its entirety. The allegation in the FIR itself reveals that the expression of allegation is enhanced & exaggerated only to harass the petitioners. He further submits that from a bare reading of the definition of the abetment, it is evident that the prosecution has brought nothing in the entire chargesheet to show and prima facie prove that, the petitioners in any form of act or any form of omissions have acted in a way which would have led the deceased to commit suicide. In fact, from the bare perusal of the statement of the witnesses, there is nothing which would show that even in said meeting the petitioners had provoked her to commit suicide. He also submits that the police authorities failed to investigate the actual conditions and role of the family members of the deceased, as she had lastly resided with them, and have failed to conduct a fair investigation. The investigating authorities have failed to conduct a preliminary enquiry with respect to the true facts and have not issued notices to the petitioners to narrate the actual facts of the case. Further, the prosecution itself has brought on record that the date of birth of the deceased is 23.05.2003 and the date of birth of petitioner No. is 11.05.2004, 6 which discloses a fact that the deceased was a year older than petitioner No.1 and on basis of this fact, it would be relevant to point out that any crime which has been alleged to commit by petitioner No.1, was committed at the time when the petitioner No.1 was juvenile and there is not a single evidence which would show that the physical assault was done against the victim when she was a minor. He contended that the petitioners have been roped in the FIR with an ulterior motive with a sole objective of by wrecking his vengeance with the petitioners. A bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the story narrated by the complainant on different occasions suffers from material contradictions. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and entire proceedings deserves to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the FIR discloses the prima facie offence and as such, the petition deserves to be quashed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR produced by the learned State counsel. 9. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that Sanjay Sahu came to the police station and reported the suicide of niece Pallavi Sahu. He stated that due to her six-year-long love affair with 7 Yuvraj Sahu, who refused to marry her, the victim was harassed and distressed. On 23.10.2024 at 11:50 A.M., she hanged herself with her chunri (scarf) from the myar (a wooden beam or shelf) in her house. Based on the complainant's report, a suicide report was filed under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), with case number 100/2024. It was found in the CDR (Call Detail Record) that Yuvraj Sahu, using his mobile number 7000359974, had conversed with the deceased's mobile number 7000659629 a total of 27,959 times. Based on the complete investigation, witness statements, eyewitness accounts, and the confidential photos and videos exchanged between Yuvraj and Pallavi, it was determined that Yuvraj Sahu, son of Bhuvaneshwar @ Bhunes Sahu, age 21, a resident of Vishrampuri, had repeatedly forced physical relations with the deceased, knowing she was a minor. He then betrayed her by refusing to marry her, which led to her being shamed and harassed, causing Pallavi Sahu to hang herself with her chunri inside her home. Since Yuvraj Sahu's actions were found to be the cause of the victim's death, a case was registered under Section 108 of the BNS, with case number 156/2024, and the complete suicide investigation diary was included in the ongoing inquiry. During the investigation, sufficient evidence was found against accused, Yuvraj Sahu, son of Bhuvaneshwar @ Bhunes Sahu, age 21, a resident of Vishrampuri Bazarpura, and he was formally arrested on 08.11.2024. After being informed of his arrest, he was sent to jail 8 on judicial remand by the order of the Court concerned. During the investigation, based on the statements of witnesses and other evidence, Sections 64(2)(d), 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 4, 6 of the POCSO Act were added to the case. Furthermore, based on the statements of the victim's family, witnesses, and other independent witnesses, as well as additional evidence, it was found that (1) Bhuvaneshwar Sahu, son of late Rakhi Ram Sahu, age 46, resident of Vishrampuri Bazarpura, (2) Kanta alias Kamta Prasad Sahu, son of late Rakhi Ram Sahu, age 40, resident of Vishrampuri Bazarpura, (3) Pannuram Sahu, son of late Rakhi Ram Sahu, age 38, resident of Vishrampuri Bazarpura and (4) Anita Sahu, wife of Bhuvaneshwar Sahu, age 44, resident of Vishrampuri Bazarpura, all from Vishrampuri police station, Kondagaon district, had humiliated and insulted the deceased during a meeting at the house of Sukhnandan Sahu by saying things like, "she has no relation with Yuvraj; she is trying to trap him. Their son will not marry her. Do whatever she want, at most she will send him to jail." These words are believed to have forced her to commit suicide. 10. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if 9 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, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 11. In the well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows: “(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 to 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 156(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 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. 10 (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 every 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." 12. In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill; reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi; reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors; reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Apex Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the 11 legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 13. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, 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 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. 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners relate to the questions of fact, and thus, can not be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS). The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 12 15. From the above stated case laws, it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners can not be examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record, it can not be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 16. In the instant case, from the perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant and the charge-sheet, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. In view of aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 17. The CRMP is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Bablu