1 2025:CGHC:31229-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 45 of 2023 1 - Mohd. Ibrahim Siddhqui @ Aryan Arya aged about 39 years, S/o Mohd. Haneef Siddhqui R/o Swami Vivekanand Ward, Durg Road, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anjali Jain Aged About 34 Years W/o Mohd. Ibrahim Siddhqui @ Aryan Arya, R/o Swami Vivekanand Ward, Durg Road, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Station House Officer, Police Station - City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ashok Kumar Jain Aged About 57 Years S/o Late Shri C.C. Jain R/o Mahalaxmi Enclav, Sihawa Road, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08/07/2025 1. Heard Mr. Kshitij Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioners, by way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) has prayed for the following relief(s): “1. issue appropriate orders, exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and in exercise thereof call for the records, if necessary. 2. issue appropriate orders, quashing the FIR No. 456/2018 dated 02.10.2018 and the consequential charge sheet No. 316/2019 (Annexure P-1 Colly), registered against the Petitioners at PS City Kotwali, Dhamtari Distt. Dhamtari (C.G), for the offences Under Section 417, 420, 468 & 471 of the IPC & Sec 5 of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religious Act, 1968, in the interest of justice. 3. issue further orders, quashing the entire Criminal Case No. 950/2019, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhamtari (C.G.) (Annexure P-2 Colly). 4. any other relief(s), as deem fit in the facts of case.” 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners are husband and wife. They are married since 25.02.2018 when their marriage was solemnized at Arya Samaj Temple at Raipur. From the said wedlock, a baby girl was 3 born on 13.09.2020. The petitioners are residents of the District- Dhamtari and have known each other for past many years. They having known to each other and have started liking each other, which ultimately culminated into love. Since the petitioner No. 1 belonged to different religion, his in-laws family i.e. the family of petitioner No. 2 did not approve of their alliance including the father-in-law i.e. respondent No. 03. However the petitioner No. 1 and 2 continued to share affection for each other. 4. The petitioner no. 1 was Muslim and the petitioner no. 2 wife is professing 'Jain' religion. The petitioner No. 1 embraced Hindu religion and ideology; also he has got the same duly recorded in the records. The petitioners made a thoughtful and conscious decision of marrying each other. Thus their marriage was duly solemnized on 25.02.2018 as per Hindu rites in the 'Arya-Samaj Mandir' at Raipur. The petitioners have also got their marriage duly registered. However the families and community members of his petitioner No. 2 continued to resist the marriage. The petitioners were forcibly and by deceitful means separated. The petitioners had to undergone legal battles to be united together, since the respondent No.03 father of the petitioner No.02 had tried all sort of ploys and plots to defeat the marriage of the petitioners and separate them. However, in a very painful chain of events, the petitioner No.02 was ultimately rescued and has since then been residing with petitioner No.1. Thus the pendency of the impugned criminal proceeding is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners. 5. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 3 had also filed a complaint on 02.10.2018, which 4 leads to the registration of the impugned FIR No. 456/2018, dated 02.10.2018 and consequently charge sheet bearing a registration No. 316/2019, was filed against the petitioner No.01 under Section 417, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Sec 5 of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968. Consequent to the filing of the aforesaid charge sheet, the petitioner No.1 is being prosecuted for the aforesaid offences in Cr. Case No. 950/2019 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhamtari. The entire prosecution of the petitioner no. 1 being unsustainable in law, whereas at the same time the petitioner No.02 is being put to suffer great hardships. 6. Mr. Sharma submits that the entire prosecution of the Petitioner No.01 is actuated out of malice and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, so much so that the necessary sanction for prosecution of the Petitioner No.01 under the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968 has not been duly obtained by the respondent No.03. Petitioner No.01 has also been charge sheeted and is being prosecuted for the offences under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC. The aforesaid sections are contained in Chapter XVII of IPC, which relates to the offences against property. Since there is no allegation of deceit which resulted into wrongful loss of property, the basic ingredients for the offence is not made out. Thus, the entire prosecution of the petitioner No.01 under the said Sections is misconceived and amounts to abuse of the process of law. There are no ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 417 or 420 of the IPC. The FIR does not disclose the very ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating. Since there is no deceitful act alleged on the part of the Petitioner No. 1. It is pertinent to state that Section 468 provides for the punishment for forgery of any document or electronic record for the purposes of the cheating. In 5 the instant case, there is no basic ingredient to spell out any act constituting forgery against the Petitioner No.01. Moreover since the entire charge sheet is blissfully silent as to what cheating has been committed. Hence the basic ingredients for constituting the offence under Section 468 of IPC, justifying the prosecution of the petitioner No.01 is not present. Therefore the prosecution under the said section is an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner No.01 is also being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC. In order to properly appreciate this ground, it shall be apposite to refer to the complaint made by the respondent No.03. A bare perusal of the said complaint shall reveal to this Hon'ble Court that it has been alleged that the proper procedure has not been followed by Purohit Dharam Raj Arya, at the time of the conversion of the petitioner No.01 to Hindu religion. It has further been alleged that the said certificate has been used by the petitioner No.01 before this Hon'ble Court and before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence the Respondent No.03 requested for initiating action against the Petitioner No.01. 7. Mr. Sharma next submits that a bare perusal of the aforesaid complaint, consequent to which the impugned FIR has been registered and the charge sheet has been filed, shall reveal to this Hon'ble Court that the main allegation is non-compliance of the procedure for conversion of the petitioner No.01. Since the Act of 1968 also provides for offence against a person whoever converts any person from one religious faith to another in contravention of sub- section (2) of Section 5. Thus there is no penalty contemplated under the Act of 1968 against the person who is so converted, hence as per the complaint of respondent No.03 no prosecution could have been initiated against the petitioner No.01. The complaint alleges that 6 offence has been committed in the course of Court proceeding, where the forged documents have been produced. Thus the entire allegation relates to the 'forgery' been committed in respect to the documents submitted in the court proceedings. Hence, in these circumstances the impugned FIR could not have been registered in view bar engrafted in Section 195 Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, {1992 Supp (1) SCC 335}. To constitute the offence under Section 467 IPC there has to be forged document, which must be forged by the accused. However the FIR is blissfully silent as to what is the document with reference to which forgery has been committed. Hence it is submitted that none of ingredients of the offence has been spelt in the FIR even if the entire allegation are taken on its face value. Similarly for Section 468, the same being non-cognizable offence, the FIR could not have been registered. Thus the impugned FIR has been registered without there being any ingredients constituting cognizable offence, hence the same is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and as such, he prays that the present petition may be allowed. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after completion of the investigation, since the charge sheet has been filed by the police before the learned trial Court, now it is for the trial Court concerned to proceed with the matter. 9. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the petitioner No. 1 belonged to a different religion and in order to deceit the petitioner No. 2, he fradulently converted to Hindu faith in contravention of Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of 7 Religion Act, 1968 and has also used forged documents before the Court of law and as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. A query was made by this Court to the learned counsel for the parties with regard to the present status of the petitioner No. 1 and his wife i.e. petitioner No. 2, it has been reported that both the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 are living together peacefully alongwith their daughter who is now aged about 5 years. 11. Earlier, the petitioner No. 1 had filed a Habeas Corpus petition being WP(HC) No.21 of 2018 wherein he had alleged that the petitioner No. 2 was detained illegally by the respondent No. 3. A Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 30.07.2018, keeping in view the safety and security of the petitioner No. 1-husband and the petitioner No. 2- wife, had directed that if the petitioner No. 2 wanted to go with parents, she was free to do so and in case she did not want to live with her parents, she was directed to be accommodated in the GDC Hostel, Bilaspur and the expenses for such accommodation was directed to be borne by the parents of the petitioner No. 2. 12. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner No. 1 had approached the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1076/2018 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to allow the said appeal and permitted the petitioner No. 2 to go with her parents as that was her desire which she expressed before the Hon’ble Apex Court. It was further observed that as the petitioner No. 2 was a major, she was capable of taking her independent decision, however, the Apex Court refrained from commenting on any aspect with regard to the marriage 8 and matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 both belong to different religion and as per the contentions of petitioner No.1 , he has converted to Hindu faith before his marriage with the petitioner No. 2 and from their wedlock, a girl child was also born which is now aged about 5 years. 14. In a well-celebrated judgment reported in Bhajan Lal & Others (supra), the Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The 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. (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 9 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.” 15. It is an admitted fact that the respondent No. 3, being the father of petitioner No. 2 was not happy with the decision of the petitioner No. 2 to marry with petitioner No. 1, who belonged to a religion which was different from theirs. The FIR has been lodged by the father of the petitioner No. 2 on 02.10.2018 alleging that the petitioner No. 1 had married petitioner No. 2 in a deceitful manner. However, the fact of the matter remains that the petitioner No. 2 has no objection and is living peacefully with the petitioner No. 1. A child has also born from their wedlock. In case, the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 1 is held guilty of the offences, the ultimate sufferer would be the petitioner No. 2 and her daughter as there would be no body to look after them. The entire FIR and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner No. 1 is manifestly attended with mala fide and 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 and in view of clause (7) of the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served if the 10 criminal proceedings against the petitioner No. 1 is allowed to continue. 16. It has been admitted by learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 that the petitioner No. 2 is living with her daughter alongwith petitioner No. 1 without any objection. 17. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 456/2018 dated 02.10.2018 and the consequential charge sheet No. 316/2019 registered against the petitioner No. 1-Mohd. Ibrahim Siddhqui @ Aryan Arya, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968 as well as the entire Criminal Case No. 950/2019, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhamtari. It is ordered accordingly. 18. Consequently, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.07.09 11:46:00 +0530