1 2026:CGHC:1859-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 94 of 2026 Smt. Prabha Sahu Wd/o Late Rupendra Kumar Aged About 41 Years Working As Clerk At Block Education Officer Bhatapara, R/o Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward, Sai Colony, Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara (City), District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Bhatapara (City), District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Rajeev Dubey S/o Narayan Dubey Aged About 59 Years Resident of Nayapara Ward Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara (City), District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition with the following reliefs :- ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.14 10:39:32 +0530 2 “i. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 filed by the petitioner. ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR bearing crime no. 300/2021 registered with police station Bhatapra (City), District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) for offence under section 306, 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3,4 of Chhattisgarh Debtor Protection Act, 1937 in respect of petitioner/accused. iii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire charge sheet filed by the police station Bhatapra(City) District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) in crime no. 300/2021 against the petitioner/accused for the offences under section 306, 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3,4 of Chhattisgarh Debtor Protection Act, 1937 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bhatapara District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) on 14.02.2022. iv. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order of congnizance dated 29.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) in Session Trial case no. 12/2025. v. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceeding pending before learned Additional Judge of Additional Session Judge Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) which is registered as Session Trial no. 12/2025 in respect of petitioner/accused. 3 vi. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the charge order dated 10.09.2025 in respect of petitioner/accused passed in Session Trial no. 12/2025 passed by learned Additional Judge of Additional Session Judge Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) wherein the petitioner has been charged for the offences under section 306, 34 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Chhattisgarh Debtor Protection Act, 1937.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that on 09.04.2021, Smt. Radhika Dubey, resident of Bhatapara, allegedly committed suicide by hanging. A merg intimation was lodged on the same day at about 3:15 p.m. by Adil Hospital, Bhatapara. During the course of the merg enquiry, the son of the deceased handed over an alleged suicide note on 11.05.2021. Subsequently, on 26.07.2021, a written complaint was lodged by the husband and son of the deceased alleging that the present petitioners were pressurizing the deceased to return a loan amount allegedly advanced by them and were also threatening her that, in default of payment, she would be dragged to the court at Bhatapara. On the basis of the said written complaint, the present crime was registered against the petitioner. 4. Pursuant thereto, an FIR was registered at Police Station Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar–Bhatapara. During investigation, statements of twelve witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’). 4 5. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge- sheet against the present petitioner. At the stage of framing of charge, the petitioner raised objections and submitted that no offence under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC or Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Debtor Protection Act, 1937 was made out against her, even on a perusal of the prosecution material and documentary evidence. 6. The Learned Trial Court, however, rejected the said objections and, by impugned order dated 10.09.2025, framed charges against the petitioner in Sessions Case No. 12/2025 for offences under Sections 306/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Debtor Protection Act, 1937, and fixed the matter for further proceedings. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had earlier preferred a petition before this Court registered as Cr.M.P. No. 3527/2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 21.11.2025 with liberty to file a fresh petition, subject to deposit of cost of Rs. 5,000/-. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner has duly deposited the requisite costs in the Registry of this Court, to be transmitted to the Government Home for Mentally Underdeveloped Children, Mana Camp, District Raipur. 8. Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations levelled against the petitioner, it is alleged that she had advanced a hand loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- to 5 the deceased and had allegedly taken some blank cheques and signatures on blank stamp papers from her. However, as is evident from the seizure memo, no such incriminating material or documents have been seized from the possession of the present petitioner. Even otherwise, as per the prosecution case itself, the petitioner had not adopted any illegal or coercive means for recovery of the alleged loan amount. He further submits that on a bare perusal of the contents of the written complaint, no ingredients constituting an offence under Section 306 of the IPC are made out against the present petitioner. There is no allegation whatsoever of abetment, instigation, or intentional aid on the part of the petitioner which could have driven the deceased to take the extreme step. Mere demand for return of a loan amount, assuming the same to be true, does not fall within the ambit of “instigation” so as to attract the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. 9. Mr. Verma further submits that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Arjunan v. State, Rep. by its Inspector of Police, 2019 AIR SCW 43, wherein it has been categorically held that in the absence of the basic ingredients of abetment, an offence under Section 306 of the IPC is not made out. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, this Court, in Cr.M.P. No. 1441/2017 decided on 17.10.2023, on similar allegations, has discharged the petitioner from the offence 6 under Section 306 of the IPC. It is contended that no suicide note was recovered from the spot immediately after the incident. The alleged incident occurred on 09.04.2021 at about 14:45 hours, whereas the FIR was lodged belatedly on 26.07.2021, after an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly three months, which itself creates serious doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution story. 10. It is submitted by Mr. Verma that the name of the present petitioner does not find mention in the alleged suicide note, nor does the said note contain any allegation of harassment, intimidation, or undue pressure being exerted by the petitioner upon the deceased. On the contrary, the suicide note specifically mentions the names of one Amit Sharma and Ganesh Dhruv, stating that the deceased had taken loan amounts from the said persons. It is further submitted that a cumulative reading of the allegations levelled against the present petitioner and the contents of the suicide note, which was handed over by the son of the deceased to the police on 11.05.2021, clearly shows that no allegation has been made against the petitioner herein. Even in the subsequent written complaint, the only allegation against the petitioner is of demanding return of the alleged loan and stating that, in default, the deceased would be proceeded against before the competent court, which by itself does not constitute any offence. 7 11. Lastly, Mr. Verma submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged and has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2021 passed in MCRCA No.976/2021. During the course of investigation, the petitioner has fully cooperated with the prosecution, strictly complied with all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court, and has never misused the liberty granted to her. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned State counsel appearing for respondent No.1, opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the allegations contained in the FIR, the suicide note, and the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation, if taken at face value, disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner. It is further submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, a detailed appreciation of evidence is neither warranted nor permissible, and the learned trial Court has rightly framed the charges on the basis of the material available on record. Hence, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. 13. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and have carefully perused the documents annexed with the present petition. 14. From perusal of the FIR, it transpires that the then Station House Officer, Police Station Bhatapara City, upon observation of Merg No. 14/2021 registered under Section 174 CrPC, opined that the 8 deceased, Smt. Radhika Dubey, wife of Rajiv Dubey, aged about 50 years and resident of Nayapara Ward, Bhatapara, who was residing in a rented house, was allegedly being harassed, pressurised, and threatened by the accused persons, namely Jitu Sharma, Smt. Anju Guma, and Smt. Prabha Sahu, for repayment of loan money along with interest. It is further reflected that, as per the statements of the husband and son of the deceased, the said accused persons were continuously demanding money from the deceased, due to which she remained under mental stress and, allegedly being disturbed and upset, committed suicide by hanging herself. 15. It is further stated in the FIR that on the basis of the said allegations, offences under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 were found prima facie to be made out against the accused persons, pursuant to which the crime was registered and taken up for investigation. 16. The FIR also records that the marg intimation was lodged on 09.04.2021 at about 15:15 hours on the basis of information furnished by Lalit Sahu, Ward Boy, Adil Hospital, Bhatapara, stating that the deceased was brought to the hospital in a dead condition after having allegedly committed suicide by hanging at about 14:45 hours on the same day. The place of incident was recorded as Adil Hospital, Bhatapara City, and the cause of death 9 was noted as hanging. Upon receipt of the information, necessary marg proceedings were initiated, the dead body was subjected to panchnama proceedings, and intimation regarding registration of the case was forwarded to the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 17. It is well settled that at the stage of consideration of a petition seeking quashing of an FIR, charge-sheet, or an order framing charge, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or to evaluate the probative value of the material collected during investigation. The Court is only required to see whether the allegations, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of the alleged offences. Where the prosecution material discloses the existence of a prima facie case and raises triable issues, interference at the threshold is neither warranted nor justified. 18. In the present case, a perusal of the FIR, the suicide note, the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, and other material collected during investigation prima facie indicate that the deceased was subjected to continuous pressure and harassment in connection with repayment of loan amounts and interest, and that such conduct allegedly led to mental stress, ultimately culminating in the deceased taking the extreme step. Whether such acts amount to abetment within the meaning of Section 306 of the IPC, and whether the ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the 10 Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 are ultimately established, are matters which require appreciation of evidence and adjudication during trial. 19. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding delay in lodging of the FIR, non-mention of her name in the suicide note, absence of seizure of incriminating material, and reliance on judicial precedents, though not devoid of substance, involve disputed questions of fact. Such issues cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage and are required to be tested on evidence before the trial Court. 20. The impugned order framing charges reflects due application of mind by the learned Trial Court, which has rightly confined itself to examining whether a prima facie case exists, without embarking upon a detailed analysis of the defence of the accused. This Court does not find any patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity in the order framing charges so as to warrant interference. 21. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of law, nor does the present case fall within the narrow compass of exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings at the threshold. 22. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. It is, however, clarified that any observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of disposal of the present petition and shall not be 11 construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter independently and decide the same strictly in accordance with law. 23. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu