1 2025:CGHC:40047 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2134 of 2022 1 - Santram Dewangan S/o Mohan Lal Dewangan Aged About 64 Years R/o. Sethinagar, Besides Haat Bazaar, Chakradharnagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Basanti Dewangan W/o Santram Dewangan Aged About 54 Years R/o. Sethinagar, Besides Haat Bazaar, Chakradharnagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Deepak Dewangan S/o Santram Dewangan Aged About 25 Years R/o. Sethinagar, Besides Haat Bazaar, Chakradharnagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) --- Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Of Police Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Station House Officer Police Station Chakradharnagar, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - XYZ --- Respondents CRMP No. 60 of 2023 Tarun Dewangan S/o Shri Santram Dewangan Aged About 31 Years R/o Sethi Nagar, Besides Haat Bazaar, Chadradhar Nagar, Raigarh, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tehsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.08.12 10:31:12 +0530 2 ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Chakardhar Nagar, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Himanshu Meher W/o Shri Tarun Dewangan Aged About 29 Years D/o Shri Shatrughan Meher, R/o Gauri Shankar Mandir Road, In Front Of Lalpari, P.S. City Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police, Raigarh District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr.Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent- State For Respondent- Complainant/Wife : : Mr.Swajit Ubeja, Panel Lawyer Mr.Amit Singh Chauhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.08.2025 1. Since the aforesaid two petitions have been filed arising out of the same FIR i.e., FIR No.527/2022, they are clubbed and heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.Swajit Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent-State and Mr.Amit Singh Chouhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant/wife. 3 3. Petitioners-Santram Dewangan, Smt.Basanti Dewangan and Deepak Dewangan have filed CRMP No.2134/2022 with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the First Information Report bearing FIR No.527/2022 (Annexure P-1), registered by Police Station- Chakradharnagar, District- Raigarh (C.G.) against the petitioners, and subsequent proceedings, if any, & may direct the respondent police authority to submit a closure report and direct the police authorities not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners.” 4. Petitioner-Tarun Dewangan has filed this CRMP No.60/2023 with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that the Petition may kindly be allowed and the FIR No. 527/2022 (Annexure P-1) and its consequences, registered by Police Station- Chakardhar Nagar Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.), U/s. Sections 377, 354, 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE, only in respect to the petitioner, may kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice.” 5. Brief facts are necessary for the case are that on 25.04.2021, the marriage of petitioner-Tarun Dewangan was solemnized with respondent-Smt.Himanshu Meher / Complainant as per Hindu rites and rituals, in the presence of family, friends and relatives at Raigarh, but due to strain relationship between the petitioner- husband and respondent-wife, the marriage did not work and 4 then on 29. 06.2022, the petitioner-husband has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent-wife. 6. On 27.09.2022, the respondent/complainant has lodged the report at police Station- Chakardhar Nagar, Raigarh against four accused persons namely Santram Dewangan (Father-in-law) , Smt. Basanti Dewangan (Mother-in-law), Deepak Dewangan (Brother-in-law & the petitioner who being the husband of the respondent/complainant with the allegation that on 03.05.2021, all the four accused persons have committed the act attracting Sections 377, 354, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Copy of the FIR is Annexure P-1. 7. As a matter of fact, the petitioner-husband has already filed a petition on 29.06.2022 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent/wife. The parties have already stepped into their appearances and are contesting before the Learned Family Court, Raigarh. Even on 20.07.2022, the parties have appeared before the conciliator/mediator in the family court proceeding and have expressed their intentions for separation of marriage. Even there are certain whatsapp chats, between the parties, i.e. 96170-66609 (Respondent-wife whatsapp Number) and 86027-77229 (Petitioner-husband whatsapp Number). Even on 13.09.2021, the petitioner/husband has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent/wife . 5 Hence these petitions. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that marriage of the petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife was solemnized on 25.04.2021 and after about two months, dispute arose between them. On 04.08.2021 the respondent-wife left her matrimonial home. He further submits that the petitioner-husband has filed application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 13.09.2021 and even after service of notice upon the respondent- wife, she did not appear. On 27.06.2022, the petitioner-husband withdrew the application filed under Section 9 of the HMA and subsequently chose to prefer to file application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for decree of divorce and thereafter the counseling was done on 20.07.2022 between the parties and as the possibilities of compromise was not meted out on 18.08.2022, they agreed for mutual divorce. He further submits that the respondent-wife had then lodged FIR on 27.09.2022 wherein the date of incident was mentioned as 03.05.2021, which is an afterthought. Even the whatsapp chatting details of husband and wife submitted on record does not reveal about the unnatural sex discussion by the husband. As such, the petitions deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR deserves to be set aside/quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent-State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Wife oppose the submissions made by learned 6 counsel for the petitioners and submit that the FIR discloses the prima facie offences against the petitioners. As such, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with these petitions. 11. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: - “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an 7 exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 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 155(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 ever 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 8 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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 12. The Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2016) 9 SCC 1 held as under:- “35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Code, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Kal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was held as under:- “29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or 9 even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or 10 alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn 11 the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arisingt therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 13. In the matter of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, the Supreme Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. It was held as under: 12 “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” (emphasis supplied) 14. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), the Supreme Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13 15. From perusal of the pleadings, it appears that marriage of the petitioner-husband and the respondent-complainant was solemnized on 25.04.2021 and after about two months, dispute arose between them. On 04.08.2021 the respondent-wife left her matrimonial home. It further appears that the petitioner-husband filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 13.09.2021 and even after service of notice upon the respondent- wife, she did not appear, on 27.06.2022, the petitioner-husband withdrew the application filed under Section 9 of the HMA and subsequently chose to prefer to file application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for decree of divorce, which is pending consideration before the concerned Family Court. It also appears that respondent-wife lodged the FIR on 27.09.2022 wherein the date of incident was mentioned as 03.05.2021, which is an afterthought. Even the whatsapp chatting details of husband and wife submitted on record does not reveal about the unnatural sex discussion by the husband and according to learned counsel for the petitioners, out of their wedlock there is one daughter who is living with the respondent-wife and petitioner-husband is paying Rs.10,000/- as maintenance to the respondent-wife. 16. Perusal of the FIR does not disclose the ingredients of any cognizable offence under Sections 377, 354 and 34 of the IPC and is being used as a weapon of offence just to harass the husband and inlaws. 14 17. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR are inherently improbable and the contents of the FIR do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the petitioners herein. In the case in hand, malicious prosecution was instituted by the respondent-wife against the petitioners, which deserves to be set aside. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned FIR registered in Crime No.527/2022 on 27.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) at Police Station Chakradharnagar for offence under Sections 354, 377, 34 of the IPC against the petitioners is hereby quashed. 19. The petitions under Section 482 CrPC are allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- Sd Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu