1 2026:CGHC:2674-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 183 of 2026 1. Laxmi Narayan Sindram S/o Ishwar Sagar Aged About 38 Years R/o Jhabar, Dipka, Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ishwar Singh Sindram S/o Tulsiram Sindhram Aged About 66 Years R/o Jhabar, Dipka, Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3. Chamrin Bai W/o Ishwar Singh Sindram Aged About 60 Years R/o Jhabar, Dipka, Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. Dipka, Korba, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.01.19 10:45:45 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the applicants with the following prayers: “1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present petition and quash the Final Report No. 319 of 2025, dated 20.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) filed for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 108, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, by Police Station Dipka, Korba, Chhattisgarh, arising out of FIR No. 0385 of 2025, dated 20.10.2025, registered under Section 108, 3(5) of the BNS annexed herewith as (Annexure P/2) as well as the order dated 22.11.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, in Criminal Case No. 7620 of 2025, whereby the learned Court below had taken cognizance of the State Final Report No. 319 of 2025 (Annexure P/3) and also the further proceedings arising therefrom. 2. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass any other order(s) as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, according to the prosecution, the deceased, Vandana Sindhram, wife of Applicant No.1 and daughter-in-law of Applicants No.2 and 3, allegedly committed suicide by consuming poison on 24.07.2025 and succumbed to her 3 injuries on 04.08.2025. The prosecution alleges that this act was on account of physical and mental torture inflicted upon her by the applicants. It is further contended that the applicants disliked the deceased and had married her only under family pressure, and that she was continuously taunted by the applicants with statements such as “go and die.” He further submits that the prosecution contends that due to such alleged instigation, the deceased consumed poison on the said date. She was admitted to the hospital on 24.07.2025, where she ultimately died on 04.08.2025. The hospital issued a morgue intimation stating the cause of death as septic shock (rat-kill poisoning). It is further alleged that the deceased suffered from depression due to continuous mental and physical cruelty inflicted by the applicants. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that post- inquest, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination, which opined that the cause of death was septic shock due to poisoning and held the death to be suicidal in nature. On the basis of this inquiry, FIR was registered against the applicants in Crime No. 0385/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS). After completion of investigation, the police filed the final report, and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the matter. Learned counsel submits that, prima facie, no case is made out against the applicants, and a bare perusal of the FIR does not indicate instigation or abetment by the applicants. 5. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicants that 4 the deceased was admitted to the hospital on 24.07.2025 and died on 04.08.2025. During this period, she did not make any complaint alleging instigation by the applicants, nor was any dying declaration recorded by the police or attending doctors. Learned counsel further submits that there exists no proximate nexus between the conduct of the applicants and the alleged act of suicide. He emphasizes that the ingredients of abetment under law require: (i) instigation of a person to commit an offence, or (ii) engagement in a conspiracy to commit the offence, or (iii) intentional aid to commit the offence. In the present case, all these ingredients are conspicuously absent. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants would further submit that even if the contents of the FIR and final report are taken at their highest, no case is made out. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanju Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371, held that during a quarrel, even statements such as “Go and die” do not, prima facie, amount to instigation to commit suicide. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., (2001) 9 SCC 618, it was held that mere quarrels, derogatory remarks, or even extramarital affairs are insufficient to prove abetment; strong evidence of active instigation, continuous harassment, or circumstances leaving the victim with no option but to commit suicide is required. 7. Learned counsel further submits that there must be a clear mens rea on the part of the accused, coupled with an active or direct act which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Such act must have been intended to drive the deceased to a position where she saw no 5 alternative but to take her own life. In the present case, there is no evidence of any act of goading, solicitation, or inducement by the applicants which could have led to the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment, without proximate act or conduct immediately preceding the incident, are insufficient to sustain a case of abetment. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the petition. The State submits that the deceased had been subjected to repeated physical and mental harassment by her husband, father-in- law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law. The State contends that the applicants repeatedly taunted the deceased and created circumstances which drove her to consume poison. The investigation, including witness statements, post-mortem report, and hospital records, reveals prima facie evidence of harassment and instigation. The State submits that the allegations, if taken at face value, constitute cognizable offences under Section 108 of the BNSS Act, and that the trial Court must be allowed to investigate and adjudicate the matter. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order, post-mortem report, and other material on record. 10. The legal position governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings is well settled. Such power is to be exercised sparingly, with caution, and only in exceptional cases. Ordinarily, courts do not interfere with the investigation or prosecution of cognizable offences. Interference may be warranted under Article 226 of 6 the Constitution of India or Section 528 of the BNSS where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute any offence, or the proceedings are manifestly mala fide or amount to abuse of the process of law. 11. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down categories where criminal proceedings may be quashed. However, it has been consistently held that where allegations disclose commission of an offence and require appreciation of evidence, the High Court should refrain from exercising inherent powers. 12. In the present case, a careful perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet, and cognizance order reveals that the deceased, Vandana Sindhram, was allegedly subjected to repeated and sustained physical and mental harassment by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in- law. The allegations, if taken at their face value, portray a prima facie pattern of harassment that may have driven the deceased to a desperate act. While the applicants contend that no abetment is made out, the nature, frequency, and continuity of the alleged harassment, coupled with the repeated taunts, indicate circumstances that merit detailed inquiry. Given the gravity of the matter, it is imperative that the trial Court thoroughly investigate the allegations and allow the evidence to be fully examined before drawing any conclusions. 13. In view of the above, this Court finds that the matter warrants full investigation and trial. At this stage, interference would be premature, 7 as the allegations disclose cognizable offences under the BNSS Act and require careful appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. 14. Consequently, the petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 58/25, charge-sheet No. 319/25, and all proceedings arising therefrom is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan