1 2026:CGHC:13350 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 590 of 2026 1 - Sanjay Kumar Pradhan S/o Narad Pradhan Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Panchdhar, Police Station Sariya, District- Raigarh (C.G.). 2 - Shashikala Pradhan D/o Narad Pradhan Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Panchdhar, Police Station Sariya, District- Raigarh (C.G.). 3 - Sumitra Pradhan W/o Narad Pradhan, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Panchdhar, Police Station Sariya, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Sariya, District- Raigarh (C.G.). 2 - Smt. Kshiti Pradhan, W/o Sanjay Pradhan, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Gudu, Police Station Pusore District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For the petitioners : Mr. Vikram Pratap, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 19/03/2026 1. This petition under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed against the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bhilaigarh (CG) in Criminal Revision No.27/2024 whereby the charge framed by the trial Court ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.03.23 11:00:18 +0530 2 vide order dated 26.10.2024 for the offence u/s 498-A/34 has been maintained. 2. As per the prosecution case, respondent no.2/wife lodged FIR on 07.08.2019 u/s 498-A/34 of IPC alleging that she was being tortured by her husband, sister-in-law and mother-in-law for demand of dowry and eventually she was assaulted and thrown out. Looking to the nature of allegations and dispute, the police registered the complaint of respondent no.2 and subsequently counseling was done wherein petitioner no.1/husband refused to keep the complainant/wife with him. The said statement of the husband was recorded and thereafter the statement of complainant/ respondent no.2 and other witnesses were also recorded. The petitioners were arrested on 17.09.2019 and thereafter they were released on bail by the trial Court. 3. After filing the charge sheet, the trial Court framed the charge against the petitioners on 26.10.2024 regarding dowry harassment and cruelty towards complaint for demand of dowry. Against the framing of charge, the petitioner filed revision which was rejected by the revisional Court. 4. The petitioners contend that the allegations made against them in the complaint are general and sweeping (omnibus), particularly regarding charges under Section 498-A. They further argue that the allegations do not satisfy the legal ingredients required to constitute the offence. It is also submitted that the husband/ petitioner no.1 is a government servant, petitioner no.2 (Sister in law) is working in NGO and petitioner no.3 (mother-in-law) is an old and infirm lady of aged about 70 years. The wife herself left the matrimonial home on 02.10.2018, by calling her father, specifically at a time when the husband was not present in the house. Therefore the petitioners seek to set aside the order framing charge dated 26.10.2024 and subsequent revisional court order dated 17.11.2025 claiming unsustainable. 5. The issue whether the general allegations are made against the petitioners for the alleged demand of dowry and the cruel treatment towards wife can only be determined after evidence is presented. At 3 the stage of framing of charge, the court would only consider whether prima facie material is there or not to proceed with the trial. 6. It is well settled position of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the defence of accused could not be put forth. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, reported in AIR 2017 SC 796, while dealing with the issue, held that at the stage of framing of a charge, the Court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. 7. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been again reiterated by their Lordship in the case of State of M.P. vs. Deepak, 2019 (13) SCC 62 and it has been held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to consider the material only to find out if there is a ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence and the court is not required to appreciate the evidence on record and consider the allegations on merits and to find out on the basis of the evidence recorded is likely to be convicted or not. In para-16 of the said judgment it has been held as under: “16. It was also noted that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for “presuming” that the accused had committed the offence : ( Chitresh Kumar Chopra case [ Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] , SCC p. 613, para 25) “ 25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for “presuming” that the accused has 6 committed an offence and not for the 4 purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.” 8. In the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Others, 2020 (2) SCC 290, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same and has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused to proceed with the trial. 9. Applying the aforesaid principles to the instant case, after going through the charge sheet and the documents annexed thereto, at this stage, the defence adduced by the applicant cannot be accepted. The same has to be decided on the floor of the Court during evidence while they are tested by virtue of examination and cross examination. 10. Thus, in view of the forgoing discussion, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of framing of charge at this stage. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- Sd/- Sd (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao