1 2025:CGHC:51282-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3143 of 2025 Jitendra Kumar Sahu S/o Sita Ram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o- Surdongar, Police Station- Doundi, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer of Police Station Doundi, District Balod (C.G.) 2. Sub- Inspector, Uma Thakur Sub- Inspector, Police Station- Doundi, District- Balod (C.G.) (Since The Fir Has Been Registered On Merg Intimation Upon Information Given By The Petitioner Himself) (Proforma Complainant) 3. Smt. Basan Bai Sahu W/o Nand Kumar Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o- Village- Sirsida, Ps- Charama, District- Kanker (C.G) (Mother Of The Deceased) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.10.2025 1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghe, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.10.16 15:16:36 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “A. The Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR bearing No. 33/2025 dated 11.03.2025 at 18.49 hours filed at P.S. Doundi, Balod (C.G.) under Section 108 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 filed at the instance of respondent No. 2 against the petitioner. B. The Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the charge-sheet bearing No. 33 of 2025, filed by the Police of P.S. Doundi, Balod (C.G.) on 04.05.2025 under Sections 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pursuant to FIR bearing Nko. 33 of 2025 dated 11.03.2025 at 18.49 hours filed at P.S. Doundi, Balod (C.G.) under Section 108 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. C. The Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order taking cognizance dated 09.05.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dallirajhara, District Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 1209/2025 wherein the learned Magistrate Court has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 108 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioner. D. The Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 11.06.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balod, wherein cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court in Session Case No. 36/2025 under Section 108 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioner. E. The Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the proceedings pending in Sessions Case No. 3 36/2025 pending before Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) filed pursuant to registration of FIR bearing No. 33/2025 dated 11.03.2205 at 18.49 hours filed at P.S. Doundi, Balod (C.G.) against the petitioner alleging offences under Section 108 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. F. The Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order of framing charges and the charge- sheet framing charges dated 30.07.2025 passed in Sessions Case No. 36/2025 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) wherein the charges have been framed against the petitioner under Section 108 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased was the wife of the petitioner. On 20.02.2025, information was received by the Police that the deceased, Duleshwari, had hanged herself near Khursitikur Bandh Nala. The said information was given by the petitioner himself, upon which merg intimation No. 8/2025 was registered under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) at Police Station Doundi, District Balod (C.G.). It is stated that the deceased was upset as she was not permitted to visit her parental home, due to which she became angry and left the house on 18.02.2025 at around 9:00 a.m. The petitioner had been searching for her, and on 20.02.2025 at about 12:10 p.m., it was found that the deceased had hanged herself from a tree in the field of Johan Singh Patel, situated at village Khursitikur Khar. During investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner and the deceased were 4 married about fifteen years ago and had two sons aged approximately 12 and 8 years. Statements of the family members of the deceased indicated that the petitioner used to harass and assault the deceased since soon after the marriage, that he did not allow her to attend family functions, that he used to publicly assault her, and that he was addicted to alcohol. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem, and as per the report dated 20.02.2025, the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging; the nature of death was ante-mortem, with signs of hanging present. After investigation, FIR was registered on 11.03.2025, and the final report was filed before the competent Court on 04.05.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a perusal of the statements in the charge-sheet shows that most of the witnesses are relatives of the deceased, and their statements are cyclostyled in nature, merely alleging harassment and abuse without narrating any specific incident. It is contended that neither the deceased nor her family members had ever lodged any report against the petitioner during her lifetime. The petitioner and the deceased had been married for fifteen years, and no suicide note has been recovered. 5. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statements of the couple’s children, who would have been the most material witnesses, have not been recorded. In absence of any positive act on the part of the petitioner to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide, the essential ingredients of abetment are not 5 satisfied. There must exist a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide, which is lacking in the present case. She further stated that a perusal of the charge-sheet further shows that the statement of the deceased’s mother, Basan Bai, was recorded only on 31.03.2025 — more than one and a half months after the incident and over twenty days after registration of the FIR. Similarly, other family members’ statements were recorded only on 31.03.2025 or 19.04.2025, suggesting that the allegations were an afterthought, made solely to falsely implicate the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the letter dated 31.03.2025 written by the police to the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Doundi, District Balod, reveals that the family members of the deceased later fabricated a story of abetment to suicide. They had falsely alleged that the postmortem report did not mention certain injuries or a fracture on the body, prompting the police to seek clarification. However, the panchnama prepared at the time of the incident did not indicate any such injuries, thereby demonstrating that these allegations were an afterthought made after more than a month from the date of occurrence. She also contended that the deceased was having an extra-marital affair, which came to the knowledge of the petitioner, and when she was confronted about it, she committed suicide out of guilt. She further submits that the petitioner has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 17.06.2025 passed in MCRC No. 3059/2025. 6 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that presently, both the minor children are residing with the petitioner. She also further submits that earlier, the petitioner had preferred a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings, vide CRMP No. 2977/2025, which was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after impleading the mother of the deceased as a party respondent. Hence, the present petition. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the investigation was conducted in accordance with law, a charge-sheet has been filed, and the learned trial Court has already taken cognizance and framed charges against the petitioner. It is further contended that at this stage, this Court cannot conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the materials placed on record. 10. The law is well settled that the power to quash an FIR, charge- sheet, or criminal proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is to be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases. The parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, make it clear that quashing is permissible only when the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides. 11. In the present case, the allegations made in the FIR and charge- 7 sheet, if taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offence alleged. At this stage, this Court cannot go into a meticulous appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini-trial. The petitioner shall have the liberty to raise all permissible defences before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. 12. Considering the totality of the circumstances and the settled position of law, this Court does not find any justifiable ground to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, for quashing the criminal proceedings. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the stage where charges have already been framed against the petitioner, we do not find any merit or justifiable ground to interfere. It cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any jurisdictional error, infirmity, or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan