1 2026:CGHC:20808-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2864 of 2024 1 - Parisha Trivedi W/o Abhishek Trivedi Aged About 38 Years D/o Anup Kumar Tiwari, R/o 113 A / 1, Kothi Devophar, New Civil Lines, District Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. 2 - Ashish Swaroop Shukla S/o Late Shri Janardhan Swaroop Shukla Aged About 54 Years R/o A - 45, Hans Puram, Awam Vikas, District Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Durgesh Trivedi S/o Late Shri Suresh Chand Trivedi Aged About 46 Years R/o 431, 3, Sadar Bazar, Ward No. 35, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate. For Respondent(s) /State : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocates. CRMP No. 2871 of 2024 Aradhyanayan Tiwari S/o Anup Kumar Tiwari Aged About 33 Years R/o 113 A / 1, Kothi Devophar, New Civil Lines, District Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Durgesh Trivedi S/o Late Shri Suresh Trivedi Aged About 46 Years R/o 431, 3, Sadar Bazar, Ward No. 35, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title Taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : In person (through Video Conferencing) For Respondent(s) /State : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05/05/2026 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner {in Cr.M.P. No. 2864/2024} and petitioner in person {in Cr.M.P. No. 2871/2024}. Also heard Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 and Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. Since both the petitions arise out of same offence and they involve common facts and issues, thus, they are being considered and decided by this common order. Cr.M.P. No. 2871/2024 is taken as the lead case. 3. The petitioner, in Cr.M.P. No. 2871/2024, has prayed for the following relief(s): “i. Quash the chargesheet (Annexure No. P-1) dated 13.09.2018, numbered as 353 of 2018, filed on 01.08.2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 456 of 2016, U/s 394, 451 and 34 IPC, P.S City Kotwali, District - Rajnandgaon, 4680 in Criminal Case No. 4580 of 2024, U/s 394, 451 and 34 3 IPC, PS City Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon, currently pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, along with entire subsequent proceedings, in the interest of justice; ii. Quash the FIR dated 04.07.2016, in Case Crime No. 456 of 2016, U/s 394, 451 and 34 IPC, P.S City Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon; iii. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned Criminal Case No. 4580 of 2024, U/s 394, 451 and 34 IPC, P.S. City Kotwali, District - Rajnandgaon, titled as 'State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Aradhyanayan Tiwari and others' currently pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon; iv. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case along with cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the Petitioner. 4. The petitioner, in Cr.M.P. No. 2864/2024, has prayed for the following relief(s): i. Quash the chargesheet (Annexure No. P-1) dated 13.09.2018, numbered as 353 of 2018, filed on 01.08.2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 456 of 2016, U/s 394, 451 and 34 IPC. PS. Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon, 4680 in Criminal Case No. 4580 of 2024, U/s 394, 451 and 34 IPC, PS Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon, currently pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, along with FIR and entire subsequent proceedings, in the interest of justice; ii. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case along with cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the Petitioners. 5. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that an FIR, bearing Crime No. 456/2016 was lodged by the complainant/respondent No. 2 before the Police Station, Rajnandgaon, for the offences under Sections 451, 394 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that on 04.07.2016, he received a phone call on his mobile number from Santosh Rajak, who informed him that some people from the in-laws’ side of Abhishek Trivedi had come to the house. Thereupon, the complainant reached his house at about 2:30 p.m. and saw that an Innova car was parked in front of his house, and inside the ofÏce of his house, daughter-in-law Parisha Trivedi along with her mother Swati Tiwari, brother Aradhya Nayan Tiwari, 4 maternal uncle-in-law, and other persons were sitting. On seeing the complainant, they started abusing him in filthy language and, while threatening to kill him, began pressurizing him to open the lock of the house and allow them to enter inside. The complainant then said that his younger brother does not have any coming and going in his house and asked them to send daughter-in-law Parisha Trivedi to his brother Abhishek in Dubai. On this, they became agitated and assaulted the complainant and snatched his mobile phone, Samsung Galaxy J7, gold color, worth ₹15,000, and fled away. On the basis of the report, Crime No. 456/2016 under Sections 451, 394, 34 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. The police filed its closure report on 15.12.2017 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon on finding that no offence was made out against the petitioners. However, the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 05.06.2018 directed to conduct further investigation in the matter. The said order of the learned Magistrate was challenged by the petitioners before the learned Revisional Court but the revision petition stood dismissed vide order dated 09.05.2019. The order dated 05.06.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate as well as order dated 09.05.2019 passed by the learned revisional Court were assailed by the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court in WPCr. No. 352/2019. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed by the police before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon bearing No. 353/2018 on 13.09.2018. The learned trial Court registered the case as Criminal Case No. 4580/2024. 6. Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 19.06.2023 in WPCr No. 352/2019, was plased to modify the order of the learned Magistrate to the extent that the words final report or closure report are not found under Section 173(2) of 5 the Cr.P.C. rather the words police report is used. Hence, the Investigating authority was granted liberty to further investigate the matter and submit a police report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. However, after passage of 8 years and in absolute disregard to the order dated 19.06.2023 passed by this Court, the investigating ofÏcer submitted a charge sheet dated 13.09.2018 on 01.08.2024 in Criminal Case No. 4580/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 451 and 34 of the IPC without there being discovery of any new evidence between the period 05.06.2018 and 13.09.018. 7. According to Mr. Bhardwaj, the petitioner-Aaradhyanayan Tiwari, co- accused persons and the respondent No. 2 are all family members. Co- accused Swati Tiwari @ Aruna Tiwari (deceased) is the mother of the petitioner. Co-accused Ashish Swaroop Shukla {petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 2864/2024} is the maternal uncle of the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner, Aruna Tiwari @ Swati Tiwari expired on 13.10.2021. The impugned proceedings are a result of matrimonial dispute between the sister of the petitioner-Aaradhyanayan Tiwari, Parisha Trivedi and her husband, Abhishek Trivedi. The sister of the petitioner, Parisha Trivedi got married on 15.4.2015 with Abhishek Trivedi, brother of the respondent No. 2, at Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. Abhishek Trivedi is working as an Architect in Dubai and out of the said wedlock, on 20.1.2016, a baby girl was born at Lucknow. The respondent No. 2 is the elder brother of Abhishek Trivedi and by marriage, he is the brother-in-law of the petitioner and Jeth of Parisha Trivedi. After marriage, in laws of Parisha Trivedi continuously harassed her mentally and physically for bringing insufÏcient dowry in marriage and thereafter, Abhishek Trivedi ousted Parisha Trivedi from their Dubai home to her paternal home after discovering that she was pregnant with a female child. After the birth of 6 Aadhira Trivedi, on 20.01.2016, Abhishek Trivedi refused to bring his wife and child along with him to Dubai, rather compelled them to continue living at the wife's maternal home in Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. Abhishek Trivedi is only interested in leading a bachelor life, and does not want to bear the burden of his wife and daughter. The fact that the sister of the petitioner gave birth to a female child, is a root cause of the matrimonial dispute between the sister of the petitioner and her in- laws. After marriage, dispute arose between Abhishek Trivedi (brother of respondent No. 2) and his wife Parisha Trivedi (sister of the petitioner), relations turned sour and in consequence thereof, respondent No. 2 has lodged the FIR against the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention that, the petitioner has come to know that the Respondent No. 2 is dependent upon the income of his brother from Dubai. With a mutual agenda to falsely implicate the petitioner and family member in vexatious criminal proceedings, on 20.06.2016, 24.06.2016 and 02.07.2016 Abhishek Trivedi sent four emails to the father and sister of the petitioner, thereby instructing them to urgently travel to Raipur, Chhattisgarh, to submit documents for travel and visa related formalities of Parisha Trivedi and their daughter so that they could return to Dubai. Abhishek Trivedi stated that the 'concerned person' i.e., respondent No. 2, would help facilitate all formalities. Perusal of the four emails dated 20.06.2024, 24.06.2024 and 02.07.2016, reveal that the same have been sent with an ulterior motive to lure the accused persons and trap the petitioner and family members in false criminal cases in Chhattisgarh. Believing the aforesaid false assurances, on 03.07.2016, the petitioner travelled along with other family members, including the 5-month-old daughter, to Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh via airplane. On 04.7.2016, when the petitioner and the other co-accused persons reached the matrimonial house, the main gate 7 was locked and no entry was permitted to them. Around 11:30 a.m., Rajesh Kotadiya (friend of the respondent No. 2), reached the matrimonial house and shortly thereafter the respondent No. 2 reached the matrimonial house. Together they started abusing the petitioner and further started manhandling Parisha Trivedi and her 5-month-old daughter. Respondent No. 2 threatened to falsely implicate the petitioner and other co-accused persons in criminal proceedings in Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, in order to teach them a lesson for approaching the authorities in Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh, on 24.06.2016. The respondent No. 2 called a group of 6-7 people, who came and surrounded the petitioner and other co-accused persons. The respondent No. 2 further threatened to kill Parisha Trivedi and her 5-month-old daughter if she did not leave at once. The petitioner and other co-accused, fearful for their lives, somehow managed to escape. On 04.07.2016 and 07.07.2016, the father of the petitioner and the co-accused Parisha Trivedi sent two separate emails to Abhishek Trivedi, apprising him of the occurrence of all events. A perusal of the emails reveals that in the heat of moment accidentally the mobile phones got exchanged and it was further made clear that co-accused Parisha Trivedi wants to return the mobile phone. Bald and general omnibus allegations regarding shouting have been assigned to the Petitioner. No specific role, either of theft or of causing injury, has been assigned to the Petitioner. No recovery has been made from the Petitioner. None of the witnesses have corroborated the false case of the respondent No. 2, that any physical injury was caused to him by the accused persons. Only upon perusal of the statement of witness Santosh Rajak, it is revealed that the role of causing injury by punching, has been assigned to the sister-in-law of the respondent No. 2 himself. The evidence on record reveals that words were exchanged between 8 both parties, due to the action of the respondent No. 2 i.e., of not unlocking the door to the matrimonial house. Since the petitioner did not trespass into the house, Section 451 IPC does not apply. Further perusal of the material on record, reveals that the main role of carrying away the Samsung Galaxy J-7 Mobile phone has been assigned to the mother of the petitioner, by the respondent No. 2, witness Rajesh Kotadiya and Santosh Rajak. Per Contra, two witnesses namely Professor R.P. Dixit and Sanjeev Awasthi have assigned the role of carrying away of the mobile phone to the maternal uncle of the petitioner. A perusal of the statement of the respondent No. 2 reveals that 3 mobile phones were kept on the table, which were being used for making voice recording. Thus, truth of the matter is that the mobile phones got exchanged during the time, when the respondent No. 2 threatened the accused persons to vacate the premises. The applicability of Section 394, evidence of theft or attempt to commit theft is a prerequisite. For the commission of theft, moving of property to take such a thing dishonestly out of the possession of any person, is again a prerequisite. A perusal of the case of the prosecution reveals that the respondent No. 2 was making video recording of the co-accused Swati Tiwari, and thus co-accused has snatched the phone and kept it in her purse. The aforesaid action is not a premeditated offence, rather one done out of irritation / instigation. The petitioner and other co-accused persons travelled a distance of 1000 kilometers, to escort co-accused Parisha Trivedi and 5-month-old infant daughter Aadhira Trivedi to their matrimonial house, at the behest of the respondent No. 2 and his brother (Abhishek Trivedi). Even if this false narrative of the prosecution is to be believed, co-accused Parisha Trivedi has sent an email on 07.07.2016, with a request to return the phone. It is revealed that the respondent No. 2 was not interested in 9 retrieving the phone, rather falsely implicating the petitioner and other co-accused persons in legal proceedings in Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Thus, the present case is one of bait and trap. Thus, no mens rea and motive is present in the instant case. Further, erroneously, recourse has been made to Section 34 IPC in the instant case. No criminal act i.e., physical act (differentiated from 'offence'), has been committed by the petitioner, in furtherance to purported common intention. The petitioner could not have visualized the ill treatment meted out by the respondent No. 2 and the subsequent occurrence of snatching of phone. Said act, is a standalone act of the co-accused Swati Tiwari (deceased), and the petitioner has no role or involvement therein. There is no psychological fact to suggest prior meeting of mind or common intention of accused persons, with regard to stealing the mobile phone worth Rs. 15,000. In fact, there is no weapon of assault used in the alleged offence and the mere verbal duel has been given a colour of criminal offence. Hence, these petitions deserve to be allowed and the FIR, the charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings be quashed. 8. On the other hand, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned counsel for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that when the complaint was made by the respondent No. 2 and on a cognizable offence being prima facie made out and only after the order of the learned Magistrate concerned, further investigation was conducted and the charge sheet was filed by the police against the accused persons/petitioners. Now, the matter is in the Court and there is no role of the respondent No. 1. 9. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2/complainant submits that the learned trial Judge made a very prudent decision in issuing the order to take cognizance. It was the petitioners who committed the offence in question and they attacked 10 the respondent No. 2 when he returned home and when the respondent No. 2 started recording their acts in his mobile phone, the said mobile was looted/stolen by the petitioners. The correct facts have not been pleaded by the petitioners and the petitioners have not yet returned the mobile phone either to the respondent No. 2 or to the police. The different versions of the incident narrated by the petitioners at different stages are false and fabricated in order to cover up the crime and injury caused to the respondent by the petitioners during the incident as evident from medico legal examination of the respondent No. 2. The petitioners attempted to destroy/tamper the mobile phone whichi s evidence in this case by swapping out the SIM card from which the e- mail address received the notification. This action on the part of the petitioner provides a clear picture of their malice intention and their desire to infect the cell phone, which serves as an evidence. Hence, both these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and materials available on record. 11. 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 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. 11 12. 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 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 12 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.” 13. From perusal of the FIR, the charge sheet and on considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it transpires that the parties are related to each other very closely. It further transpires that the relationship between the parties are not cordial because of matrimonial dispute between the petitioner-Parisha Trivedi and her husband-Abhishek Trivedi who is the brother of respondent No. 2. Parisha Trivedi has filed number of cases under various Sections of the IPC and the Domestic Violence Act, Dowry Prohibition Act as also a case seeking maintenance. From bare perusal of the FIR, it transpires that the dispute between the parties are petty issues which has arisen when the petitioners were called by the respondent No. 2. When the respondent No. 2 restrained the petitioners from entering into his house, the argument started but the said incident was not premeditated. The mobile phone got exchanged because of some confusion as the phone was taken by the mother of the petitioner-Parisha Trivedi. The petitioners have expressed their willingness to return the mobile phone to the respondent No. 2 during the course of argument. There appears to be no meeting of minds between the petitioners and no weapon of assault has been used. The dispute between the parties are domestic in nature and do not constitute any offence, whatsoever. It appears that the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or the 13 proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused due to private and personal grudge as one of the petitioner has instituted number of cases against the brother the respondent No. 2. 14. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the FIR, the charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners deserve to be quashed. Accordingly, the charge- sheet dated 13.09.2018 bearing No. 353/2018, arising out of the FIR bearing Crime No. 0456/2016, dated 04.07.2016, for the offences under Sections 394, 451 and 34 of the IPC, registered at Police Station, Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon, the Criminal Case No. 4580/2024 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, and the subsequent proceedings, if any, are quashed. 15. Resultantly, both the petitions stand allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.05.06 16:53:58 +0530