1 2026:CGHC:21280-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1261 of 2026 1. Navratan Sahu S/o Late Nanduram Sahu Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Village- Sarwani, Police Station- Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) 2. Manbhulau Sahu S/o Late Chinilal Sahu Aged About 60 Years Resident Of Village- Sarwani, Police Station- Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) 2. Rameshwar Sahu S/o Anturam Sahu Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Village- Sarwani, Police Station- Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Samsun Samual Masih, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.05.07 17:18:16 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. Samsun Samual Masih, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: “I. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition under Section 528 of BNSS filed by the petitioner. II. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR dated 14.06.2025 bearing Crime No. 198 fo 2025 registered at Police Station, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) for the offence under Section 108, 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioners. III. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Final Report No. 381/2025 dated 31.12.2025 filed by Police Station, Sakti, District Sakti before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti against the petitioner for the offence under Section 108, 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. IV. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order of cognizance dated 17.02.2026. 3 V. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order of charge dated 02.04.2026 and entire criminal proceedings pending in Sessions Trial No. 08/2026 before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (now District Sakti) against the petitioners. VI. Grant any other relief, which may be deemed fit in given facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present case arises out of a family property dispute between the family members of the deceased and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is submitted that the deceased, namely, Mehattar Ram Sahu, had two sons, namely, Chitendra Sahu and Jitendra Sahu. After the death of the elder son Chitendra Sahu, his widow Smt. Vimla Bai Sahu along with her children was residing separately in the same matrimonial house. The deceased had subsequently executed a registered gift deed in respect of 2.48 acres of land in favour of the children of his younger son Jitendra Sahu, which was objected to by Vimla Bai Sahu before the Revenue Authorities. In this background, a social meeting was convened only with an intention to amicably resolve the family dispute relating to partition of the property and during the said meeting the deceased himself assured that appropriate share would be provided to Vimla Bai Sahu and her children. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that except the allegation that certain pressure was allegedly exerted upon the 4 deceased during the said social meeting, there is no material available on record to show that the petitioners had ever instigated, provoked or intentionally aided the deceased in committing suicide. It is submitted that the deceased committed suicide after three days of the alleged meeting and there is no proximate or direct act attributable to the petitioners which may constitute the offence punishable under Section 108 of the BNS. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners that the basic and essential ingredients constituting the offence of abetment of suicide are completely absent in the present case. Even if the allegations made in the FIR, merg inquiry and the statements recorded during investigation are taken at their face value, the same do not disclose any intentional instigation, conspiracy or active aid on the part of the petitioners so as to attract the provisions of Section 108 of BNS. It is submitted that only omnibus and vague allegations have been levelled against the petitioners without there being any specific overt act attributed to them. He also contended that the impugned FIR bearing Crime No.198/2025 has been lodged with an oblique motive only to harass the petitioners and the continuation of criminal proceedings against them amounts to abuse of process of law. It is submitted that after completion of investigation, the final report was filed and cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti vide order dated 17.02.2026 and thereafter charges under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS were framed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti vide order dated 02.04.2026 5 mechanically without there being sufficient material against the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that the petitioners had earlier approached this Hon’ble Court by filing anticipatory bail applications bearing MCRCA Nos.1085/2025 and 1115/2025 and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to them. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused namely Yadram Sahu has already challenged the same proceedings before this Hon’ble Court in CRMP No.1177 of 2026 and this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 27.04.2026 has granted relief in his favour. Therefore, on the ground of parity also, the present petitioners are entitled to the same relief. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR, final report, cognizance order dated 17.02.2026, order framing charge dated 02.04.2026 and the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law and continuation of the same would amount to abuse of process of Court. Therefore, the same deserve to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the present petitioners are directly connected with the deceased and specific allegations have been levelled against them in connection with the dispute relating to partition of the family property. It is submitted that during the course of investigation, material has been 6 collected showing involvement of the petitioners in exerting pressure upon the deceased during the social meeting convened on 28.03.2025 and, therefore, after due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against them. It is further submitted that the case of the present petitioners stands on a different footing from that of the co-accused, Yadram Sahu who has been granted relief by this Court and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim parity. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the FIR, charge-sheet and the material available on record. 10. The scope of interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is well settled. Such inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in exceptional cases where the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, even if accepted in entirety, do not disclose commission of any offence or where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. At this stage, the Court is not required to meticulously appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial to determine the correctness of the allegations. 11. In the present case, a careful perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet reveals that during the merg inquiry conducted in Merg No.23/2025 under Section 194 of the BNSS, it was found that after the death of Chitendra Sahu, a dispute arose regarding partition of the family 7 property between his widow Vimla Bai Sahu and the deceased Mehattar Ram Sahu, particularly after the deceased executed a registered gift deed in respect of 2.48 acres of land and house in favour of the sons of his younger son Jitendra Sahu, namely Lokesh Sahu and Bhupesh Sahu. 12. The FIR and charge-sheet further reveal that in connection with the said dispute, a social meeting was convened on 28.03.2025 at the house of accused Yadram Sahu, wherein the present petitioners along with several members of the Sahu community were present. During the said meeting, the deceased disclosed that he had already executed the gift deed in favour of Jitendra Sahu and his grandsons. It has specifically been alleged that thereafter the present petitioners along with other accused persons exerted undue pressure upon the deceased for repartition of the land and house. 13. The record further reflects that thereafter, on 05.04.2025, the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself from a guava tree situated behind his house, pursuant to which Crime No.198/2025 was registered under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and investigation was undertaken. During investigation, the alleged suicide note along with admitted handwriting samples of the deceased were seized and sent to the Handwriting Expert, Police Headquarters, Raipur for examination. Upon completion of investigation, sufficient material was found against the present petitioners and accordingly charge-sheet No.361/2025 dated 8 31.12.2025 has been filed before the competent Court. 14. At this stage, this Court cannot enter into a detailed examination of the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made by the prosecution. Whether the acts attributed to the petitioners would ultimately constitute abetment of suicide or not is essentially a matter of evidence, which can be adjudicated only during trial upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties. 15. The contention of the petitioners that the dispute was purely civil in nature and that no ingredients of Section 108 of the BNS are made out cannot be accepted at this stage, particularly when the FIR and the statements recorded during investigation prima facie indicate that the petitioners were present in the meeting and allegedly exerted pressure upon the deceased in relation to the property dispute shortly before the incident of suicide. 16. It is also significant to note that though the petitioners have disputed the prosecution case and referred to the alleged suicide note, they have not filed even a copy of the said suicide note along with the present petition. In absence thereof, this Court is not inclined to undertake any factual adjudication regarding the contents or evidentiary value of the same while exercising inherent jurisdiction. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences against the present petitioners. The 9 case does not fall within the parameters warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS. 18. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order dated 17.02.2026 and the order framing charges dated 02.04.2026. The petition being devoid of merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition and the learned trial Court shall decide the case strictly in accordance with law on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the present order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan