1 2025:CGHC:56065-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3446 of 2024 Gurvin Singh Gambhir S/o Mahendra Singh Gambhir Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 142, Near Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyalaya, Dayalband, Tikrapara, Bilaspur, Police Station - City Kotwali, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Mahila Thana, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Sandeep Kaur W/o Gurvin Singh Gambhir Aged About 35 Years C/o Father Harjeet Singh Bhalla, R/o Telibandha , Shyam Nagar, Behind Gurudwara, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18/11/2025 1 By this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS) the petitioner seeks quashing of the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 99/2024 registered at Mahila Thana, Raipur, District Raipur, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) as well as for MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.20 11:30:10 +0530 2 quashing of the impugned notice dated 20.11.2024 by which the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC has been added. 2 The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are the husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 04.02.2013 as per social customs at Bilaspur and from the said wedlock, three children have born. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 left her matrimonial house on 03.12.2022 and since then she was living with her parents. On 03.01.2023, the petitioner gave an information to the Police Station, City Kotwali, Bilaspur, that the respondent No. 2 is living separately in her parental house. On 31.07.2024, the respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 144 of the BNSS for grant of maintenance before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, alongwith an application for grant of interim maintenance. On 18.10.2024, the petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent No. 2. As soon as the respondent No. 2 became aware of the said fact, she lodged a written complaint at Police Station against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner used to assault her after consuming liquor. On the said complaint, an offence under Section 323 and 506 of the IPC was registered on 11.11.2024. Thereafter, a notice has been issued by the Police of Police Station, Mahila Thana, Raipur, wherein it was directed that an offence under Section 323, 506 and 498-A of the IPC has been registered against the petitioner and the petitioner has been called to put forth his version. 3 Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and baseless. From the bare perusal of the FIR, it is evident that the 3 petitioner has not made any allegation with respect to demand of dowry but still, in the notice dated 11.11.2025, the offence of Section 498-A of the IPC has been added. No case whatsoever is made out against the petitioner even if the prosecution case is taken on its face value. The respondent No. 2 has been living separately since December, 2022 and the FIR has been lodged after two years and that too, after filing of the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, by the petitioner. As such, prayer is made for quashing of the FIR as well as the impugned notice dated 11.11.2025. 4 On the other hand, Mr. Soumya Rai, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that when a cognizable offence was prima facie found to be made out against the petitioner, the FIR was lodged against him. The investigation has already been completed, charge sheet has been filed and charges have also been framed against the petitioner by the learned trial Court. 5 Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner, under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, used to beat the respondent No. 2 and used abusive languages in presence of their children which is evident from the CCTV footage of the house of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 was both physically and mentally tortured by the petitioner and the petitioner had threatened the respondent No. 2 to kill her in case she does not bring Rs. 50 Lakhs from her parents. The petitioner is a habitual gambler and has lost huge amount of money in gambling. An FIR against the petitioner has also been registered under the Gambling Act. The petitioner, instead of maintaining the expenses of his wife and three children, is withdrawing money from the account of the respondent No. 2/complainant using her 4 signed cheques, without her permission and knowledge. The said signed cheques were fraudulently acquired by the petitioner. As such, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 6 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7 On 19.12.2024, this Court had directed the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 to appear before the Mediation Centre of this Court on 09.01.2024 and the matter was directed to be listed on 21.01.2025 alongwith the report of the Mediation Centre and till then, the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 99/2024 dated 11.11.2024 was directed to remain stayed. The parties duly appeared before the Mediation Centre, and as per the report, the mediation has failed. 8 From perusal of the FIR, it transpires that the same was lodged by the respondent No. 2 on 11.11.2024 only after filing of the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, by the petitioner. The alleged incident of assault occurred on 18.12.2022 i.e. two years before lodging of the FIR and why the respondent No. 2 took almost two years for lodging the FIR has not been explained. In the notice issued by the police on 11.11.2024, the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC has also been added by the police when the said offence does not find place in the FIR , nor is there any allegation with regard to demand of dowry by the petitioner. It appears that minor family dispute has been tried to be exaggerated. 9 The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and 5 Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if 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, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 10 In a well-celebrated judgment reported in State of Haryana & Others v Bhajanlal & Others, {AIR 1992 SC 604} the Apex Court has laid down certain guidelines and 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 ofÏcers 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 ofÏcer 6 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 there is sufÏcient 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 efÏcacious 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.” 11 The respondent No. 2 has not been able to explain as to what caused such an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR on 11.11.2024 i.e. after two years when the incident is alleged to have occurred in between 18.12.2022 to 19.12.2022. Further, even if the prosecution case is taken on its face value, it appears to be mere family dispute between a husband and wife. 12 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 99/2024, dated 11.11.2024 registereda t Mahila Thana, Raipur, for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC as well as the notice dated 20.11.2024 issued by the Station House OfÏcer, Mahila Thana, Raipur, as well as 7 other consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR. It is ordered accordingly. 13 Consequently, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Manpreet