1 2025:CGHC:1117-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3059 of 2024 1 - Masoom Bombarde S/o Late Ashok Kumar Bombarde, Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Gali No. 6, Kedar Badi, Police Station Tahsil Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In Charge Police Station- Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Muskan Bombarde W/o Masoom Bombarde, Aged About 21 Years R/o C/o. Sushil Wasnik, Q.No. Ews-81, Vaishali Nagar, Supela Bhilai, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S. S. Ubeja, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. S. Ubeja, Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State, Mr. P. R. Patankar, learned 2 counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 14.02.2023 in Crime No. 107/2023 registered at Police Station, Dongargarh and charge-sheet dated 28.02.2003 with the following prayer: "It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR dated 14.02.2023 in Crime No. 107/2023 by police station Dongargarh, charge sheet dated 28.02.2023 & pending ACJM Dongargarh Court proceedings against the petitioner, in the interest of justice. " 3. Brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the documents annexed with the petition are that on 14.02.2023 the respondent no. 2, who is the wife of the petitioner, have lodged a report with the allegation that on 14.02.2023 when her husband came from his duty at about 01:30 p.m., he started abusing her with filthy language and insisted to go back to her parents house and he is not willing to reside with her. After giving threatening with dire consequences, he assaulted her by a brass glass on her right hand and abdomen and also assaulted by suitcase on her left leg by which she received injuries and feeling pain. The incident was witnessed by her brother-in-law and mother-in-law and they intervened in the incident. She also informed the incident to her parents and thereafter lodged the report. 4. The police has registered the offence under Section 294, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. against the petitioner and started investigation. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 294, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dongargarh and the Criminal Case No. 982/2023 is registered and 3 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dongargarh. The said F.I.R. as well as charge-sheet and the proceedings of the criminal case is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent no.2 who is the wife of the petitioner used to harass him by lodging various complaints. On the complaint made by the respondent no.2, the petitioner is already facing trial of the offence under Section 498-A/34 of I.P.C. The said F.I.R. is also challenged by the petitioner and another CRMP No. 849/2023 is pending before this Court. He would further submits that the respondent no.2 does not want to live with her husband/petitioner and has already taken back her Stridhan and it is only to harass the petitioner she lodge the report against him. He would also submits only to strengthen her 125 Cr.P.C. case and the criminal case for the offence of Section 498-A of I.P.C., the present report has been lodged which is afterthought, therefore, the proceedings of the criminal case as well as the F.I.R. may be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1/State opposes and have submitted that there is sufficient material in the charge-sheet against the petitioner to proceed with the trial of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 have vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have stated that the learned counsel for the petitioner on the instructions of his client have made false statement that the compromise have taken place between the parties, whereas there is no compromise or even there is negotiation for any compromise between them. He would also submits that by making false submissions the petitioner has obtained the interim order. He would further submits that in the present F.I.R. there is sufficient material to register the F.I.R. and to proceed with the trial of the case. He would also submit that even the mother of the petitioner have made statement against him that he committed the offence for which the F.I.R. has been lodged. The respondent no.2 was medically examined and injuries have been found on her body, 4 therefore, there is ample evidence on record to register the F.I.R. and to file the charge-sheet in the case, therefore, the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 8. When a query is put to the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the compromise between the parties in the proceeding under Section 498-A of I.P.C. or not and why such statement was made at bar without any pleadings or averments in the petition, he could not give any plausible explanation. 9. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and evidence available in the charge-sheet annexed with the petition, also on the ground of wrong statements made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the instruction of his client, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the petition and to quash the proceedings of the criminal case or the F.I.R as claimed by the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the petitioner is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok