1 2026:CGHC:2411-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 678 of 2022 1 - Harishchandra Sahu S/o Late Shri Ramkrit Sahu Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Village Mohra, Post Selar, Police Station- Sipat, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. C/o Mahamaya Park Colony Mangla, Police Station- Civil Line District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mithalesh Sahu S/o Late Shri Ramkrit Sahu Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village Mohra, Post Selar, Police Station- Sipat, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. C/o Mahamaya Park Colony Mangla, Police Station- Civil Line District-Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Sunita W/o Harishchandra Sahu Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Village Mohra, Post Selar, Police Station- Sipat, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. C/o Mahamaya Park Colony Mangla, Police Station- Civil Line District-Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Sandhya Sahu W/o Jay Sahu Aged About 34 Years C/o Mahamaya Park Colony Mangla, Police Station- Civil Line District-Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Shakti, District-Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dheeraj Sahu S/o Buddheshwar Prasad Sahu R/o Ward No. 5 Gopal Saw Mill Budhwari Bazar Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.2 : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.15 17:05:02 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 1 5 .01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioners have filed the instant petition with the following reliefs :- “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present petition and Quash the F.I.R. No. 283/2021 registered by police station Shakti on 4/9/2021 offence under section 323,506, 452,294, 34 of LP.C. against the petitioners and also quash the further proceeding arising out of the said F.I.R.. in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case, are that respondent No.2/complainant Dheeraj Sahu alleged that on 13.08.2021 the present petitioners entered his house, abused him, and assaulted his mother Mana Bai with fists and kicks, causing injuries, whereupon the aforesaid crime was registered. The actual background, however, is that Smt. Mridula Sahu, sister of petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 and sister-in-law (Nanand) of petitioner No.3, is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.2. Their marriage was solemnized on 30.04.2012 as per Hindu rites. Out of the wedlock, a son Chandraditya was born on 3 12.09.2014. Due to matrimonial disputes, Smt. Mridula Sahu started residing at her parental home during 2015–2016. A community meeting of Sahu Samaj was held on 10.12.2016 at Village Lagra, after which, on mutual assurance, the spouses resumed cohabitation till 2020. Thereafter, respondent No.2 allegedly subjected her to mental and physical cruelty on account of dowry demands, compelling her to again leave the matrimonial home. 4. On 12.01.2021, respondent No.2 took the minor son with an assurance to return him within 15 days but neither returned the child nor permitted the mother to meet him. Consequently, Smt. Mridula Sahu submitted an application to the Nayab Tehsildar, Bilaspur, pursuant to which a search warrant was issued by the City Magistrate. Respondent No.2 challenged the said search warrant by filing Criminal Revision No.14/2021 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, which was decided vide order dated 03.03.2022. Respondent No.2 also filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court. Smt. Mridula Sahu instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against respondent No.2 and his family before JMFC, Bilaspur. She further approached the Family Settlement Center, Mahila Thana, Bilaspur on 03.03.2021 seeking reconciliation. Conciliation proceedings commenced on 17.03.2021, during which, on 24.03.2021, she specifically stated that the minor child was forcibly kept by respondent No.2 and she was not allowed to meet him. The proceedings eventually failed and were closed on 28.07.2021. 4 5. Further, on 06.08.2021, Smt. Mridula Sahu submitted representations to Police Station Sakti and the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa, seeking permission to meet and take custody of her son. Acting upon instructions from the SP office, a constable visited the complainant’s house; however, respondent No.2 was unavailable. When the wife again visited the police station on 13.08.2021, the SHO declined to intervene, stating that it was a private dispute. 6. Thereafter, Smt. Mridula Sahu and some family members went to the complainant’s residence, found it locked, and despite repeated requests were not allowed to meet the child. They returned to Bilaspur without any incident. On 21.09.2021, Smt. Mridula Sahu filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Bilaspur, which is pending. 7. It is in this backdrop of ongoing matrimonial litigation that respondent No.2, with ulterior motive and vengeance, lodged the present FIR making false and concocted allegations against the petitioners. Being aggrieved, Smt. Mridula Sahu submitted representations to the IG, SP Janjgir-Champa, and the SHO, PS Sakti, seeking closure of the false criminal case. Hence, the present petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that : • The petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and no offence under Sections 323, 294, 452, 506, and 5 34 IPC is made out against them, even if the entire allegations contained in the FIR are taken on their face value. • The petitioners are innocent persons and have not committed any act constituting the alleged offences. The FIR is based on false, exaggerated, and motivated allegations. • There is no criminal act attributable to the petitioners. The essential ingredients of the alleged offences are conspicuously absent and continuation of the proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. • The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the dispute is purely matrimonial in nature, arising out of discord between the complainant and his wife regarding custody and access to the minor child. The complainant has illegally withheld the child from his mother and has not even permitted her to meet the child. In these circumstances, the complainant has maliciously implicated the relatives of his wife to pressurize her. • The petitioners, being close family members, merely accompanied the wife of the complainant for the limited purpose of seeking a meeting with her minor son. No offence was committed by them, and the allegations levelled in the FIR are wholly fabricated. • The learned Trial Court further failed to consider that the wife of the complainant had submitted a written representation to the Station House Officer prior to the alleged incident, seeking 6 police assistance to meet her son, apprehending danger to her life as the complainant had earlier threatened her during counselling proceedings. It was only thereafter that she went near the complainant’s house along with relatives for her safety. • On the date of the alleged incident, the petitioners recorded a video, which clearly demonstrates that only the wife of the complainant and applicant No.3 (her sister-in-law) were present near the entrance of the house, while the remaining petitioners were standing at a considerable distance. • The said video further reveals that the complainant himself was recording the incident and that CCTV cameras are installed facing the entrance of the complainant’s house, which would have captured the entire incident. Despite the same, the complainant has deliberately withheld the best evidence from the investigating agency. • The impugned FIR has been lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 21 days from the date of the alleged incident. No explanation for such delay is offered, which clearly casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. On this ground alone, the FIR is liable to be quashed. • This Court has already been granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners vide order dated 22.03.2022, while observing that disputes arising out of matrimonial discord often take an ugly 7 turn due to interference of family members and while also placing reliance upon the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. • One of the family members of the petitioners had a telephonic conversation with the Station House Officer, wherein the SHO admitted that, due to external pressure, he registered the offence and added Section 452 IPC, though the same was not made out. • The learned Trial Court failed to consider that Section 452 IPC, which alone is non-bailable, is wholly inapplicable as none of the petitioners entered the house of the complainant, a fact evident from the video recording and surrounding circumstances. • The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are therefore nothing but an abuse of the process of law, instituted with mala fide intention to settle personal scores in a matrimonial dispute between the complainant and his wife. The continuance of the impugned FIR would result in miscarriage of justice and hence deserves to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioners have challenged FIR No. 283/2021 registered at Police Station Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa for offences under Sections 323, 294, 452, 506 and 34 IPC, which is still at the stage of investigation. The FIR has been registered on the basis of 8 information supplied by Respondent No.2, disclosing commission of cognizable offences and, therefore, the police has acted strictly in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the FIR is only meant to set the criminal law in motion and need not contain an exhaustive account of all facts. The veracity of allegations, defence of the petitioners, and the effect of alleged matrimonial dispute are matters of evidence, which can be examined only after completion of investigation. 10. Learned State counsel contends that this Hon’ble Court ought not to interfere at the threshold stage, as there is no patent illegality or abuse apparent on the face of the FIR. The allegations disclose a prima facie case and quashment at this stage would stifle a legitimate investigation. It is lastly submitted that since the charge- sheet / final report is yet to be filed, the present petition is premature and the petitioners are at liberty to raise all their defences before the Investigating Agency or the Trial Court at the appropriate stage. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 11. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that the present petition for quashment is wholly misconceived and not maintainable. The FIR in question clearly discloses commission of cognizable offences under Sections 323, 294, 452, 506 and 34 of IPC, and the allegations made therein are specific, categorical and supported by ocular witnesses. It is contended that the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, forcibly entered the house of the complainant, abused, assaulted and extended life-threats to the 9 complainant and his aged mother, thereby attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged. The seriousness of the allegations cannot be diluted merely by branding the incident as a matrimonial dispute. 12. Learned counsel further submits that the pendency of matrimonial proceedings between the complainant and his wife does not grant immunity to the petitioners from criminal liability, nor does it justify the invocation of inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court at the threshold. It is further submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR has been properly explained, as the complainant and his mother were terrorized by the threats extended by the petitioners and were initially reluctant to approach the police. Respondent No.2 submits that at the stage of investigation, this Court ought not to appreciate evidence, weigh disputed facts, or rely upon defence material such as video recordings, which can be examined only during trial. It is urged that inherent powers cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution, particularly when the FIR discloses a prima facie case and accordingly prays for dismissal of the present petition as being devoid of merit. 13. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length as well as all other documents annexed with the present petition. 14. Upon a careful and anxious consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the record and documents placed on record, and upon examining the factual matrix in the light of the settled principles governing exercise of 10 inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present is a fit case for interference. 15. Admittedly, the parties are embroiled in long-standing matrimonial disputes, and several proceedings arising therefrom are pending before competent courts, including proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 125 CrPC and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The petitioners herein are admittedly close relatives of the wife of the complainant, and there is nothing on record to indicate any prior criminal antecedents against them. 16. A plain reading of the impugned FIR, even if accepted in its entirety, reveals that the same is inextricably linked to the matrimonial discord between the complainant and his wife, particularly relating to custody and access to the minor child. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are general, omnibus and sweeping in nature, lacking specific overt acts, role attribution or credible material demonstrating the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, especially the offence under Section 452 IPC, which has been incorporated solely to impart gravity to the case. 17. Significantly, the FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of 21 days, which assumes importance in the backdrop of admitted hostility and pending litigation between the parties. The delay, coupled with the surrounding circumstances and contemporaneous documentary material, lends credence to the submission of the petitioners that the criminal machinery has been set in motion as a 11 counterblast and pressure tactic, rather than for redressal of any genuine criminal offence. 18. This Court is also conscious of the fact that defence material ordinarily cannot be considered at the stage of quashment; however, where such material is of sterling and unimpeachable character and demonstrably strikes at the very root of the prosecution case, the Court would not be powerless to prevent abuse of process of law. The contemporaneous video recordings and admitted presence of CCTV cameras, which have not been produced by the prosecution, further weaken the prosecution version, reinforce inference of mala fide initiation of proceedings. 19. The objection raised by the State and the complainant that the investigation is still pending and the petition is premature cannot be accepted as an absolute proposition of law. It is well-settled that mere pendency of investigation cannot be a bar to the exercise of inherent powers, where continuation of the proceedings would result in manifest injustice or abuse of process, and where the case squarely falls within the parameters laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 20. This Court is also guided by the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein a note of caution has been sounded against unnecessary criminalisation of matrimonial disputes and mechanical addition of serious penal provisions without foundational facts. 12 21. Viewed cumulatively, the continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would serve no legitimate prosecutorial purpose and would instead amount to harassment of innocent family members, thereby defeating the very ends of justice which this Court is duty-bound to protect. 22. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove and in exercise of the inherent powers conferred upon this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present petitioners would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law and would result in miscarriage of justice. 23. The impugned FIR No. 283/2021, registered at Police Station Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, for offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 452, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, having arisen out of a predominantly matrimonial and personal dispute, does not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences insofar as the present petitioners are concerned. The same has been manifestly instituted with ulterior motives and lacks the necessary factual foundation to sustain a criminal prosecution. 24. Consequently, the said FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including investigation, charge-sheet, if any, and proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court, are hereby quashed and set aside qua the present petitioners. 13 25. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the parties from pursuing their respective remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, nor shall it affect any other proceedings pending between the principal parties arising out of the matrimonial dispute. 26. The petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu