1 2026:CGHC:5244-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1150 of 2024 K. Rama Rao S/o Late Shri Surya Narayan Aged About 72 Years R/o Amarkantak Road, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S. Gaurella, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh 2 - K. Lekha W/o K. Ravi Kumar Aged About 30 Years R/o Sector 1, Dendayal Upadhaya Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, G.A. and Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30.01.2026 1. Heard Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 /State and Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.01.31 11:00:07 +0530 2 learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set aside impugned the F.I.R. bearing no. 464/2023 dated 29.10.2023 was registered at P.S.- Gaurella, District Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) under Sections 509-A of Indian Penal Code and thereafter the chargesheet no 364/2023 dated 19.11.2023 and consequential criminal proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendraroad, District Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi in criminal case no. 1297/2023 against the petitioner is apparently bad in law, as such liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.” 3. Prosecution story in brief is that the petitioner is a 72-year-old senior citizen suffering from multiple serious medical ailments, including long-standing diabetes and high blood pressure for over ten years, severe nerve dysfunction in his left leg due to poor blood circulation rendering him unable to stand or walk properly, and serious ophthalmic issues resulting in diminished eyesight and cataract surgeries in the years 2016 and 2022, as supported by medical records. Respondent No.2, who is the petitioner’s daughter-in-law, has been persistently involved in matrimonial disputes with the petitioner’s son and has, in furtherance thereof, repeatedly initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Earlier, in the year 2017–18, she lodged an FIR under Sections 3 498-A/34 IPC against her husband, the present petitioner and the sister-in-law at Police Station Kabirdham, which, upon inquiry by the Pariwar Kalyan Samiti, was found to be false insofar as the petitioner was concerned, culminating in a closure report in his favour and a limited charge-sheet only against the husband under Sections 294 and 506 IPC. Despite this, and notwithstanding a compromise arrived at between the petitioner’s son and respondent No.2 before the Family Court in September 2023 pursuant to which she started residing in the petitioner’s house, she allegedly began misbehaving with the petitioner. Apprehending false implication due to her conduct and the strained matrimonial relationship, the petitioner submitted a prior intimation dated 22.10.2023 to Police Station Gaurella detailing the conduct of the complainant and his fragile medical condition. Nevertheless, respondent No.2 lodged the impugned FIR No. 464/2023 dated 29.10.2023 at Police Station Gaurella, District Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) under Section 509-A IPC, alleging insult to modesty, which is the third round of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, apart from proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act initiated earlier. Pursuant to the said FIR, charge-sheet No. 364/2023 dated 19.11.2023 has been filed and Criminal Case No. 1297/2023 is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned F.I.R. bearing No. 464/2023 dated 29.10.2023 registered at Police 4 Station Gaurella, District Gaurella–Pendra–Marwahi (C.G.) under Section 509-A of the Indian Penal Code, the consequent charge- sheet No. 364/2023 dated 19.11.2023, and the criminal proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road in Criminal Case No. 1297/2023 are ex facie bad in law and liable to be quashed. The allegations made in the FIR do not disclose any offence against the petitioner, as there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner committed any act capable of insulting the modesty of the complainant or that he had any intention or mens rea to do so. The complainant, who is the petitioner’s daughter-in-law, has a history of lodging motivated complaints arising out of matrimonial disputes, including an earlier FIR No. 103 dated 25.02.2018 under Sections 498-A/34 IPC against her husband, the petitioner, and sister-in-law, which, upon inquiry by the Pariwar Kalyan Samiti Kabirdham, was found to be baseless against the petitioner, culminating in a closure report and a limited charge-sheet only against her husband. Despite a compromise in September 2023 between the petitioner’s son and the complainant before the Family Court, wherein she resumed living in the petitioner’s house, she allegedly misbehaved with the petitioner, prompting him to make a prior intimation dated 22.10.2023 to Police Station Gaurella about her conduct and his fragile medical condition. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner, being a 72-year-old senior citizen, suffers from multiple serious medical ailments, 5 including long-standing diabetes, high blood pressure, severe nerve dysfunction in his left leg, and significant ocular problems requiring cataract surgeries in 2016 and 2022, making him physically vulnerable. The present FIR is the third round of criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant against the petitioner, who is already facing a divorce case FA(MAT) No. 72 of 2024 involving her and the petitioner’s son, as well as a prior complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act in 2017. The complaint is clearly frivolous, vexatious, and maliciously motivated, filed to harass and embarrass the petitioner in the backdrop of ongoing matrimonial disputes. The sequence of events, the prior closure reports, and the nature of the allegations demonstrate that the FIR is manifestly attended with mala fide and is an abuse of the criminal process. Therefore, it is submitted that in the interest of justice, this Court should quash the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, and consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has filed a copy of the acquittal order dated 16.12.2024 passed in Criminal Case No. 826/2018 to demonstrate that the allegations previously levelled against the petitioner and other family members were found to be entirely baseless by the competent Court. The acquittal establishes that after a full trial, no offence was made out against the petitioner, underscoring that the complainant’s prior complaints were either frivolous, motivated, or 6 made with mala fide intent arising out of matrimonial disputes. The petitioner respectfully submits that this acquittal, along with the deposition of the private respondent in Criminal Case No. 826/2018, clearly demonstrates the inconsistency and self- contradictory nature of the allegations currently levelled against him. The petitioner submits that these materials are directly relevant to the instant petition, as they reinforce the contention that the current FIR No. 464/2023, the subsequent charge-sheet No. 364/2023, and the criminal proceedings pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road in Criminal Case No. 1297/2023 are filed without any valid foundation, are vexatious, and constitute a continuation of previous baseless allegations. In view of the above, the petitioner submits that the acquittal order and the deposition of the private respondent are material evidence supporting the quashment of the present FIR, chargesheet, and consequential proceedings, and prays that this Hon’ble Court may take the same into consideration while adjudicating the instant petition. 7. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR No. 464/2023 dated 29.10.2023 at Police Station Civil Lines, Gaurella, District Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) registered under Section 509-A IPC, the subsequent charge-sheet No. 364/2023 dated 19.11.2023, and the criminal proceedings pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 7 Pendra Road in Criminal Case No. 1297/2023, against him based on the complaint of respondent No.2/complainant. The complainant had lodged a written complaint stating that the petitioner had attempted to outrage and insult her modesty, and a preliminary enquiry conducted by the police revealed that a prima facie cognizable offence was made out against the petitioner, warranting registration of the FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Subsequent investigation, including recording of statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and collection of relevant material, led to filing of the charge-sheet, establishing prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the petitioner’s grounds, which challenge the FIR and investigation, constitute the defence which he may raise at trial, and it is not appropriate for this Hon’ble Court to evaluate evidence at this stage. Reliance is placed upon settled precedents, including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604), Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2021 SC 1918), and State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani ((2017) 2 SCC 779), to emphasize that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly and only in rarest of rare cases to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice, which are not attracted here, as the FIR discloses a cognizable offence. The petitioner has not shown any grave injustice, prejudice, or abuse of process during investigation, and there is 8 sufficient material against him. Consequently, the instant petition is misconceived, legally unsustainable, and liable to be dismissed, while the criminal proceedings ought to continue before the competent trial court. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that respondent No.3, being a party directly concerned in the matrimonial and family dispute underlying the present proceedings, respectfully submits that the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit, and not maintainable. It is submitted that respondent No.2/complainant had lodged a written complaint with the police against the petitioner, alleging that he attempted to outrage and insult her modesty, which prima facie discloses a cognizable offence under Section 509-A IPC. A preliminary enquiry conducted by the police confirmed that a prima facie case exists, leading to registration of FIR No. 464/2023, recording of statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and subsequent filing of charge-sheet No. 364/2023 dated 19.11.2023 before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road in Criminal Case No. 1297/2023. Respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner’s grievance, which challenges the FIR and the investigation, essentially raises a defence that can and ought to be addressed during trial, and at this stage it is not appropriate for the Court to examine the evidence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances, abuse 9 of process, or grave miscarriage of justice to justify interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and that the police and prosecuting authorities have acted strictly in accordance with law and procedure. Reliance is placed on settled law, including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, to emphasize that inherent powers under Section 482 are extraordinary and to be exercised sparingly, which are not attracted in the present case. Therefore, respondent No.3 prays that the instant petition be dismissed and the criminal proceedings be allowed to continue unimpaired before the competent trial court. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with this petition. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: - “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the 10 various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 11 (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 11. The Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2016) 9 SCC 1 held as under:- “35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Code, a similar view has been taken by a 12 Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Kal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was held as under:- “29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the 13 allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 14 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arisingt therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, it 15 transpires that the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, seeking quashment of FIR No. 464/2023 dated 29.10.2023 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Gaurella, District Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) under Section 509-A IPC, the subsequent charge-sheet No. 364/2023 dated 19.11.2023, and the criminal proceedings pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road in Criminal Case No. 1297/2023. The petitioner contends that the FIR and proceedings are motivated, vexatious, and constitute a continuation of prior complaints filed by respondent No.2 arising out of matrimonial disputes. 13. Upon consideration of the records, it is observed that the petitioner is a 72-year-old senior citizen suffering from multiple serious medical conditions including diabetes, high blood pressure, nerve dysfunction in the left leg affecting mobility, and ocular problems necessitating cataract surgeries in 2016 and 2022. 14. The deposition of the private respondent recorded in Criminal Case No. 826/2018 and the acquittal order dated 16.12.2024 in the same case demonstrate that the allegations previously made against the petitioner were unsubstantiated, inconsistent, and self- contradictory. The private respondent admitted in her deposition that she has been living at her parental home for most of the period since her marriage, voluntarily participated in ceremonies 16 from her parents’ home, and consistently sought to live with her husband. She further acknowledged that prior complaints, including those under Sections 498-A/34 IPC and the Domestic Violence Act, were investigated and resulted in either closure reports or acquittal, showing no offence made out against the petitioner. 15. The present FIR appears to be a continuation of the prior baseless complaints, motivated by mala fide intent and personal grievances arising from matrimonial disputes. A bare perusal of the FIR indicates that the allegations under Section 509-A IPC are vague and unsupported by prima facie material establishing the petitioner’s intention to commit the offence. The repeated filing of complaints by the private respondent clearly indicates harassment and abuse of the criminal process. 16. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that: (i) the FIR, chargesheet, and criminal proceedings against the petitioner do not prima facie constitute an offence; (ii) the deposition of the private respondent and the prior acquittal establish that the allegations are inconsistent and part of repeated vexatious litigation; (iii) the petitioner’s advanced age and medical condition render him particularly vulnerable to harassment through protracted criminal proceedings; and 17 (iv) the instant matter falls within the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., as explained in Bhajan Lal (supra) and other decisions, where the High Court may exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. 17. Considering the cumulative facts, it is clear that continuation of proceedings would cause grave injustice to the petitioner without furthering the ends of justice. 18. In exercise of the inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the FIR No. 464/2023 dated 29.10.2023 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Gaurella, District Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.), the subsequent charge-sheet No. 364/2023 dated 19.11.2023, and all consequential criminal proceedings pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road in Criminal Case No. 1297/2023, are hereby quashed. 19. The petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet