1 2026:CGHC:1114-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 27 of 2026 1. Jitendra Jogewar S/o Late Shri S.R. Jogewar, Aged About 61 Years R/o G-5 Old Adarsh Nagar, District Durg C.G. 2. Smt. Aruna Jogewar, W/o Jitendra Jogewar, Aged About 55 Years R/o G-5 Old Adarsh Nagar, District Durg C.G. 3. Shambhavi Jogewar, D/o Jitendra Jogewar, Aged About 27 Years R/o Varun Sargam Villa, Flat No. 109, Somajiguda, District Hyderabad, Telangana. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2. Superintendent of Police District Durg, S.P. Office, Collectorate, District Durg C.G. 3. Town Inspector, Mahila Thana Durg, Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar, Bhilai District Durg C.G. 4. Smt. Bharti Akulwar, W/o Karan Jogewar, Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. J/05, Adarsh Nagar, Durg C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Ms. Veethika Choubey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.01.08 17:58:04 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.01.2026 1. Heard Ms. Veethika Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to order as to quash the FIR No. 0078 of 2025 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, Durg Section 6, Bhilai Nagar, Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) dated 05.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) registered against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Section 85, 3(5) of BNS by allowing this petition in the ends of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of complainant/respondent No. 4, and petitioner No. 3 is the sister-in-law of respondent No. 4. Petitioner No. 3 has been working as an employee with Top Marketing Solutions at Hyderabad since the year 2023 and has been residing there continuously. She further submits that on 05.07.2022, the marriage of respondent No. 4 was solemnized with Karan Jogewar, who is the son of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and elder brother of petitioner No. 3. After the marriage, as per customary rites, 3 respondent No. 4 started residing at her matrimonial home along with petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and her husband. At the relevant time, petitioner No. 3 was pursuing her B.E. studies at Hyderabad. 4. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that soon after the marriage, respondent No. 4 started subjecting her husband to mental and physical harassment by making false and baseless allegations regarding his health, despite the fact that Karan Jogewar is a normal and healthy young person. She also started making irrelevant and unnecessary allegations against her husband as well as the present petitioners. It is contended that in the year 2022, respondent No. 4 left her matrimonial home and went to her parental house. Despite residing there for more than one year, she was not willing to return to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 along with her husband visited her parental house and brought her back to the matrimonial home. At that time, the relatives of respondent No. 4 were reprimanded regarding her conduct towards her husband and petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and were cautioned not to repeat such behaviour. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after returning to the matrimonial home, respondent No. 4 again started insulting petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and her husband on trivial, unnecessary, and irrelevant issues. She was unwilling to perform household work despite being provided assistance by a maid servant and a cook. It is further stated that on 03.12.2024, respondent No. 4 left 4 the matrimonial home in the absence of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and her husband. Since then, she has been continuously residing at her parental home without any sufficient reason and without the consent of her husband. It is also submitted that in the month of June 2025, respondent No. 4 submitted a typed complaint before Mahila Thana, Durg, i.e., before respondent No. 3, pursuant to which notices were issued to the petitioners for counselling proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners and Karan Jogewar (husband) appeared before the concerned police officer and counselling proceedings were conducted. After recording the statements of respondent No. 4 and her husband, it was concluded that the dispute was matrimonial in nature and that the husband was willing to keep respondent No. 4 with him. It is further submitted that on 26.07.2025, respondent No. 3 issued a memo bearing No. 155/2025 under Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), observing that the matter related to a matrimonial dispute between husband and wife and advising the parties to seek appropriate remedy before the competent Court. It is contended that thereafter, on 04.12.2025, respondent No. 4 filed an application under Section 144 of the BNSS seeking grant of maintenance against her husband before the Family Court, Durg, wherein notice has been issued and the case is fixed for hearing on 16.01.2026. Despite completion of counselling proceedings and issuance of the memo under Section 174 of the BNSS, on 05.12.2025, respondent No. 3 registered an FIR against the petitioners and the husband, which is alleged to be 5 arbitrary, illegal, and an abuse of the process of law. 7. It is contended that the FIR deserves to be quashed as it is based on omnibus, vague, and general allegations without specifying any particular date, place, or overt act attributed to the petitioners. Such allegations are stated to be motivated and intended only to harass the petitioners. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Rupendra Upadhayay & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another, CRMP No. 882/2025, decided on 09.04.2025. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions of the petitioners and submits that once an FIR disclosing commission of cognizable offences has been registered, it must be investigated in accordance with law and taken to its logical conclusion. It is therefore urged that the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including the impugned FIR. 10. The jurisdiction to quash an FIR, complaint, or charge-sheet is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised sparingly. Ordinarily, Courts do not interfere with the investigation of cognizable offences. An FIR may be quashed only where, even if the allegations are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the commission of any offence. In State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that quashing is permissible only in rare cases where the allegations are frivolous, inherently improbable, or 6 actuated by mala fides. Similar views have been expressed in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059; Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259; and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, it was emphasized that the Court cannot examine the veracity or correctness of allegations at the threshold. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540, it was reiterated that the Court should not assess the probabilities of the prosecution case or infer mala fides while exercising jurisdiction to quash. 11. Applying the aforesaid principles, the contentions raised by the petitioners cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Issues involving disputed questions of fact, appreciation of evidence, or determination of credibility of allegations fall outside the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the basis of the material on record, it cannot be conclusively held that the proceedings are manifestly mala fide or instituted with an ulterior motive. 12. A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that the complainant, a resident of Amdi, Durg, was married to Karan Jogewar on 05.07.2022 according to social customs. Within one week of marriage, she was subjected to continuous mental and physical cruelty by her husband Karan Jogewar, father-in-law Jitendra Jogewar, mother-in-law Aruna Jogewar, and sister-in-law Shambhavi Jogewar. It is alleged that the husband 7 physically assaulted her, while the other accused persons instigated and supported such acts. She was repeatedly taunted for bringing insufficient dowry, humiliated for belonging to a poor family, and subjected to abusive language. It is further alleged that the accused deliberately concealed the husband’s physical/sexual incapacity prior to marriage and deceived the complainant into entering the matrimonial relationship. The sister-in-law is alleged to have persistently harassed the complainant and imposed unreasonable restrictions on her daily life. Due to continuous cruelty, the complainant was allegedly expelled from the matrimonial home on 03.12.2024. Counselling proceedings conducted on 12.07.2025 and 26.07.2025 failed, and upon enquiry, prima facie material was found warranting registration of the offence. 13. It is a settled principle of law that once an FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences, investigation must proceed in accordance with law, and the High Court would not ordinarily exercise its inherent powers to stifle such investigation at its inception. Disputed questions of fact necessarily require investigation and trial. 14. During the course of hearing, when this Court specifically queried learned counsel for the petitioners as to why the husband, Karan Jogewar, had not been impleaded as a petitioner in the present proceedings, it was submitted that the husband would face the consequences of law, whereas the parents-in-law and sister-in-law deserved protection. This submission does not assist the petitioners, particularly in view of the specific allegations made against all accused 8 persons in the FIR and the collective nature of the alleged acts. 15. The reliance placed on Rupendra Upadhayay (supra) is misplaced. In the said case, the husband was a party to the proceedings, the matter had been referred for mediation, and only after failure of mediation, and considering the peculiar facts of that case, relief was granted. The factual matrix of the present case is clearly distinguishable, and therefore, the ratio of the said judgment is not applicable. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan