1 2025:CGHC:54037-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3337 of 2025 Santoshi Soni W/o Rinku Thakur Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Pandripani, Police Station Parpa, (Frazerpur,) District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Ajak Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 2. Divya Kashyap D/o Mangluram Kashyap Aged About 31 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Parpa, Kotwar Para, Post Pandripani Police Station Parpa (Frazerpur.) District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate For Respondent /State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06/11/2025 1. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS with the following prayer:- JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.07 10:14:20 +0530 2 “1. Pass an order quashing First Information Report in crime no. 86/2024 dated 29.05.2024 u/s 294, 323, 506, 355, 458/34 of IPC registered at Police Station Frazerpur, District – Bastar; 2. Pass an order quashing charge sheet arising out of above mentioned FIR bearing no. 11/2024 dated 06.08.2024 U/s 294, 323, 506, 355, 458/34 of IPC & Section 3 (2) (v), 3 (1) (t) (U)of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 submitted by AJAK Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.); 3. Pass an order quashing and setting aside order dated 07.08.2024, whereby the learned trial court has taken cognizance pursuant to above mentioned charge sheet in Special Sessions Case Number 9/2024; 4. Pass an order quashing and setting aside order dated 11.06.2025 where the charges have been framed U/s 294, 323/34, 355, 458, 506 part ii and section 3 (1) (द), 3 (1) (घ) एण्ड 3 (2) (v-क) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Pass an order quashing entire criminal proceedings in Special Sessions Case Number 9/2024 pending before the Special Judge, Atrocities, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur; 6. Pass an order directing that the petitioner is freed from the charges levelled against her in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case is that Respondent No. 2 lodged a report dated 23.05.2024 alleging that on 22.05.2024, during her brother’s marriage ceremony, the petitioner along with co-accused Neelam reached her residence around 11:30 P.M., showed an old photograph of the complainant with the petitioner’s husband Rinku 3 Thakur, and accused her of having an illicit relationship with him. It was further alleged that the petitioner abused and assaulted the complainant with slippers and also made caste-related remarks by uttering the words “Chamra–Chamri.” Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered for offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, 355, 458/34 of the IPC. During investigation, the spot map was prepared, the complainant’s MLC (showing no external injury) and caste certificate were collected, and statements of 11 witnesses were recorded. The petitioner was shown as absconding, and a charge sheet was filed on 06.08.2024 under the above IPC sections and Sections 3(2)(क) and 3(1)(ध) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Trial Court took cognizance on 07.08.2024, framed charges on 11.06.2025, and the case is presently at the stage of recording evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been maliciously lodged as a counterblast to the earlier FIR registered by the petitioner being Crime No. 85/2024, which arose from the same incident. The petitioner, wife of Rinku Thakur, had gone to the complainant’s house on 22.05.2024 only to confront her regarding the illicit relationship between the complainant and her husband. There, the petitioner was assaulted, her clothes were torn, and she was molested by the complainant, her family members, and her own husband. Despite making an immediate complaint, the police delayed registration of the FIR, while the 4 impugned FIR was registered seven days later to neutralize the petitioner’s case. It is further contended that the complainant and the petitioner’s husband are acting in collusion to harass the petitioner and force her into compromise. The allegations of caste abuse are false, as the complainant’s caste certificate is temporary and the petitioner had no knowledge of her caste status. As far as alleged abuse made by the petitioner with regard to the caste of complainant are not at all attracted to the social status of the complaint. Therefore, the ingredients of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not made out and it has only been added so that the trial is done by the Sessions Court. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the petition and submits that the impugned FIR contains specific allegations of assault and caste- based abuse, disclosing cognizable offences under the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is argued that the FIR was lodged after due inquiry, supported by witness statements and material collected during investigation, and a charge sheet has already been filed. The contention that the FIR is a counterblast to the petitioner’s earlier complaint is a matter of defence, to be examined at trial. Hence, no case is made out for quashing the FIR at this stage. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the matter. The FIR lodged by respondent No. 2 contains specific and 5 detailed allegations disclosing commission of cognizable offences under the IPC as well as under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The investigation has been completed, a charge sheet has been filed, and the trial court has already framed charges; the case is presently fixed for recording of evidence. The plea that the impugned FIR is a counterblast to the petitioner’s earlier complaint or that the allegations are false are matters of defence which can only be adjudicated upon during trial on the basis of evidence. At this stage, when a prima facie case is made out, no ground exists for quashing of the FIR or proceedings. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti