1 2025:CGHC:54415 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 587 of 2023 1. Sandeep Agrawal S/o. Shri Niranjan Lal Agrawal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o. House No. 570, Nagoikhar, P.S. and Tehsil - Darri, District - Korba Chhattisgarh 2. Dinesh Kumar Agrawal S/o. Shri Niranjan Lal Agrawal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o. Etwari, Bazar, P.S. and Tehsil - Darri, District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Darri, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Chhavi Agrawal W/o Sandeep Agrawal, R/o- LIG-46, Sada Colony, Jamanipali, Darri, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 16-10-2024) ... Respondents For Applicants :Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State :Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate. For Respondent No.2/Complainant :Ms. Binu Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.11.2025 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the impugned order and framing of charges dated 27.04.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 3088/2022, by which the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34, 509B, 506(Part-II) of IPC against applicant No.1 and PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.11.11 14:14:38 +0530 2 under Section 498-A/34, 506(Part-II) of IPC against applicant No.2 have been framed. 2. The facts, in brief, is that, on 30.04.2022, the complainant, namely, Smt. Chhavi Agrawal/respondent No.2, lodged a complaint before the concerned police station alleging that when she called her husband, the present applicant No.1, from her mobile phone, he abused her and used filthy language. It was further alleged that applicant No.2, who is her brother-in-law (Jeth), had also abused her in the past, looked down upon her as a woman, and humiliated her wherever she went. It was also alleged that she was subjected to abusive and insulting words at night, due to which she has been suffering mentally because of such behavior. She stated that she feels humiliated and ashamed, and that if no appropriate action is taken against them, she fears that in the future, she will be abused and humiliated even more in society. Therefore, she requested that appropriate legal action be taken against the applicants for abusing, behaving indecently, and humiliating her, in the interest of justice. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Smt. Chhavi Agrawal on the same day, i.e., 30.04.2022, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered as Crime No. 91/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 509(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Sandeep Agrawal, the present applicant No.1. After completion of the investigation, on 28.11.2022, the charge-sheet was filed by adding Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC. On the basis of the charge-sheet, the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 3088/2022, and thereafter, on 27.04.2023, charges were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/34, 509(B), and 506 (Part-II) of the IPC against applicant No.1, and under Sections 498-A/34 and 506 (Part-II) of the IPC against applicant No.2. The applicants, being aggrieved by the framing of the 3 aforesaid charges, are filing the present petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court and order framing charges under the aforesaid Sections against the applicants is erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the material available on record. Even if the entire prosecution case is accepted as true, no offence as alleged is made out. In the complaint dated 30.04.2022, there is no allegation regarding demand of dowry against the applicants, such allegations were introduced later in the complainant’s statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as an afterthought. The learned trial Court failed to consider that witness Smt. Rinky Yadav clearly stated that the applicants and their family members never demanded dowry nor subjected the complainant to cruelty. She further stated that the dispute was merely a domestic quarrel between the complainant and her husband, and that their marriage was a love marriage, thereby rendering the allegations false and baseless. The police registered the FIR on the very same day of the complaint, i.e., 30.04.2022, without conducting any preliminary inquiry or counseling between the parties, which is mandatory as per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments. Despite this, the police proceeded to file a charge-sheet adding Sections 498-A/34 IPC, in collusion with the complainant, which was not properly appreciated by the learned Court at the time of framing charges. The learned trial Court also failed to consider that immediately after four months of marriage, the complainant started harassing the applicants and their family members. Accordingly, on 24.10.2020, applicant No.1 lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Police Station Darri, and on 03.02.2021, another complaint was made before the Superintendent of Police, Korba, stating that the complainant was threatening to implicate him and his family in a 4 false case. The matter was thereafter referred to the Family Advice Centre, where he was advised to approach the competent court. Subsequently, on 12.08.2021, the applicant and his mother again lodged a complaint before Police Station Darri regarding harassment and threats by the complainant, upon which a notice under Section 155 Cr.P.C. was issued, terming it a family dispute and advising them to seek legal remedy. These documents clearly demonstrate that the complainant had been harassing and threatening the applicants from the very beginning of the marriage, and that the present case is a result of such false implication, which has not been considered by the learned trial Court while framing charges. A bare perusal of the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution reveals that there is no material or evidence whatsoever to establish the commission of an offence under Sections 498-A/34 IPC against the applicants. 4. It is well settled by a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that before framing charges, the trial Court must satisfy itself that there exists some prima-facie material supporting the alleged offence, particularly when the offences are triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC). In the present case, the prosecution has failed to collect any evidence during investigation to demonstrate that the complainant was subjected to cruelty by the applicants. None of the witnesses have stated that the applicants or their family members committed any such acts. Hence, there is no prima-facie evidence connecting the applicants to the alleged offence. It is further submitted that, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no charge can be framed unless there is prima-facie material indicating commission of the alleged offence. However, in the instant case, the charges under Sections 498-A/34 IPC have been framed without even a small iota of evidence. Therefore, the order dated 5 27.04.2023, whereby charges under Sections 498-A/34, 509(B), and 506 (Part-II) IPC have been framed against applicant No.1, and under Sections 498-A/34 and 506 (Part-II) IPC against applicant No.2, is illegal, perverse, and contrary to the settled principles of law. Hence, the said order and charges deserve to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as the counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant, opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and supports the impugned order and framing of charge dated 27.04.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 3088/2022, by which the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34, 509B, 506(Part-II) of IPC against applicant No.1 and under Section 498-A/34, 506(Part-II) of IPC against applicant No.2 have been framed, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicants is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and taking into account that the evidence of respondent No. 2, who is the wife of applicant No. 1, has already been recorded by the trial Court, this Court is of the view that interference at this stage is not warranted. The present petition has been filed to challenge the order framing charge, and as the trial is in progress with further evidence yet to be recorded, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the said order. There appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. 6 8. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order and order framing charges passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 3088/2022, by which the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34, 509B, 506(Part-II) of IPC against applicant No.1 and under Section 498- A/34, 506(Part-II) of IPC against applicant No.2, is refused. 9. However, the concerned trial Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings, preferably within a period of four months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. 10. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the present criminal revision stands disposed of. 11. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti