1 2026:CGHC:2669-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 167 of 2026 1 - Saurabh Kuranjekar S/o Late Narayan Rao Kuranjekar Aged About 39 Years R/o Flat No. 01/e-01 (Wrongly Mentioned As E-02), Chouhan Green, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Mangla Kuranjekar W/o Late Narayan Rao Kuranjekar Aged About 61 Years R/o Flat No. 01/e-01 (Wrongly Mentioned As E-02), Chouhan Green, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Dheeraj Kuranjekar S/o Late Narayan Rao Kuranjekar Aged About 37 Years R/o Flat No. 01/e-01 (Wrongly Mentioned As E-02), Chouhan Green, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Superintendent Of Police Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Station House Officer Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Santawana Thakur W/o Saurabh Kuranjekar Aged About 38 Years R/o Near Danteshwari Mandir, Malsai Talab, Kushalpur, Thana Purani Basti, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.01.16 18:26:25 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16 .01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State/ respondent. 2. The present CrMP under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR No. 136/2021 dated 29.11.2021 registered against the petitioners at P.S. Mahila Thana, Raipur (CG) for the offence under Sections 498-A, 34 of IPC and the consequent Final Report/ Charge sheet No. 105/2021 dated 25.12.2021 filed against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 of IPC as well as charge-sheet filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raigarh, Dist- Raigarh (CG). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 are husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized on 20.01.2020 at Vrindavan Palace, Mahadev Ghat Road, Raipur, as per Hindu rites and customs. Petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law and petitioner No.3 is the brother-in-law of respondent No.4. At the time of marriage, the parents of respondent No.4 allegedly gave jewellery, household articles and cash to the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 was employed with SECR Railway and was residing with petitioner Nos.2 and 3, while the other brother-in-law was residing separately at Delhi. It is alleged that during her stay in the matrimonial home, respondent No.4 was subjected to 3 taunts regarding dowry and was told that petitioner No.1 could have received dowry of Rs.25 lakhs had he married within his caste. It is further alleged that petitioner No.1 was a habitual drinker and used to physically and mentally harass the respondent No.4. According to the complainant, in December 2020, while residing at Anandpuram, Bhilai, petitioner No.1 assaulted her under the influence of alcohol and threatened to commit suicide. It is further alleged that with the help of neighbours, the respondent No.4 was assaulted, threatened with circulation of a video and ultimately thrown out of the matrimonial house. On the basis of the said allegations, an FIR bearing Crime No.130/2021 dated 29.11.2021 was registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur under Sections 498-A and 34 of IPC. After investigation, the police filed Charge Sheet No.105/2021 dated 25.12.2021 against the petitioners, whereupon Criminal Case No.1199/2022 was registered. Cognizance was taken on 15.02.2022 and charges were framed on 10.05.2022. Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, filing of the charge sheet, and all consequential criminal proceedings including the cognizance order and framing of charges, the petitioners have filed the present petition seeking quashment of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that It is submitted that the FIR, charge sheet and the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.1199/2022, including the orders of cognizance dated 15.02.2022 and framing of charges dated 10.05.2022, are illegal, untenable and liable to be quashed. The allegations made by 4 respondent No.4 are vague, omnibus and devoid of specific particulars, and even if taken at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 498-A and 34 of IPC. Even if the entire prosecution case is accepted at face value, the essential ingredients of cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC are not made out against the petitioners. The allegations of physical assault are not supported by any medical evidence or independent corroboration. The absence of such material further falsifies the prosecution case and reinforces the plea of false implication. The petitioners have been roped in only on the basis of general allegations arising out of matrimonial discord, which amounts to abuse of the process of law. It is settled law, as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), has categorically held that where allegations do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence or are manifestly attended with mala fide intentions, the High Court would be justified in quashing such proceedings to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. In absence of any prima facie material, medical evidence or specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners, the continuation of the present proceedings would result in harassment and misuse of the judicial process, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, the present Cr.MP may allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent is respectfully submitted that the FIR, charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings disclose a clear prima facie case against the petitioners for offences punishable under 5 Sections 498-A and 34 of IPC. The allegations made by respondent No.4 are specific in nature, supported by factual assertions relating to dowry demands, physical and mental cruelty, threats and forcible ouster from the matrimonial home. The material collected during investigation was found sufficient by the Investigating Agency, pursuant to which charge sheet was filed and cognizance was duly taken by the learned Magistrate after application of judicial mind. The framing of charges further establishes that a prima facie case exists against the petitioners. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021 (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and document annexed with the petition. 7. It appears from the order-sheet of the learned Trial Court dated 02.08.2025 that an application was moved by the complainant, and the applicants sought time to argue the same. The matter has been lingered on account of adjournments taken on various dates, namely 09.09.2025 and 24.10.2025. The next date has been fixed before the Trial Court for recording evidence on 20.01.2026. 8. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR 6 or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 9. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 10. It transpires from the record that the statement of the complainant/respondent No.2 is being recorded by the learned Trial Court. Her examination-in-chief was recorded on 18.05.2023, thereafter her cross-examination was conducted. Subsequently, on 23.11.2024, her examination-in-chief was again recorded. The order- sheet of the Trial Court further reflects that the applicant has been repeatedly seeking adjournments, thereby delaying the recording of evidence of respondent No.2. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. 7 11. From perusal of FIR as well as statements of the complainant and other witnesses, it transpires that there are allegations against the petitioners that they have harassed the complainant after the marriage for one and other reasons including the demand of dowry. It is also alleged that her husband is inhabit of drinking liquor and intoxicated condition, he used to bit her. There are allegations of preparing obscene video of the complainant and the various complaints have been lodged at different times whether the allegation made by the complainant and witnesses are correct or not is to be decided only after recording of the witnesses for which the proceeding is going on. 12. After having gone through the allegations made in the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet, in our humble opinion it cannot be said that no offence whatsoever is disclosed against the petitioner as there is allegation of cheating and forgery of document etc. and in the light of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we do not find any good ground for interference as it cannot be said that no offence is disclosed. 13. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 14. Let a copy of this order be sent by the Registrar (Judicial) to the learned Trial Court for necessary information and further action within a period of 24 hours. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice alok