1 2026:CGHC:24639-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1237 of 2026 1 - Harsh Tandan S/o Hulas Kumar Tandan Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Nariyara, Police Station- Mulmula, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) At Present R/o Duplex No. 61, Heengana Town, Nagpura, Police Station- Heengana, District- Nagpur (Maharastra) 2 - Hulas Kumar Tandan S/o Lakhan Lal Tandan Aged About 62 Years R/o Village- Nariyara, Police Station- Mulmula, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) At Present R/o Duplex No. 61, Heengana Town, Nagpura, Police Station- Heengana, District- Nagpur (Maharastra) 3 - Smt. Meena Tandan W/o Hulas Kumar Tandan Aged About 56 Years R/o Village- Nariyara, Police Station- Mulmula, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) At Present R/o Duplex No. 61, Heengana Town, Nagpura, Police Station- Heengana, District- Nagpur (Maharastra) 4 - Meethi Tandan D/o Hulas Kumar Tandan Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Nariyara, Police Station- Mulmula, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) At Present R/o Duplex No. 61, Heengana Town, Nagpura, Police Station- Heengana, District- Nagpur (Maharastra) 5 - Smt. Kamta Kosariya W/o Radhelal Kosariya Aged About 55 Years R/o Geetanjali City Phase-1, Bahatarai Road Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Niharika Lahare W/o Harsh Tandan Aged About 21 Years D/o Bharat Lahare, R/o Dhabadih (Kosir), Police Station- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title Taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Paras Mani Shrivas, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18/06/2026 1 Heard Mr. Paras Mani Shrivas, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. 2. 2 By this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS), the petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s): “(i) It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and pleased to quash the First Information Report No. 0553/2025 vide First Information Report dated 23/11/2025 for the offence under section 85, 296, 351 (3), 115 (2), 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 registered against the petitioner's at Police Station-Pamgarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in the interest of justice. (ii) It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and pleased to 3 quash the Charge Sheet No. 508/2025 vide Charge Sheet dated 03/12/2025 for the offence under section 85, 296, 351 (3), 115 (2), 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 filed against the petitioner's before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Pamgarh by Police Station-Pamgarh, District-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), in the interest of justice. (iii) It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and may be quash the Cognizance dated 05/12/2025 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Pamgarh, District-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) has taken the cognizance in Charge Sheet No. 508/2025 vide Charge Sheet dated 03/12/2025 for the offence under section 85, 296, 351 (3), 115 (2), 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 against the petitioners. (iv) It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and may be quash the entire Proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1604/2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Pamgarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) as State of Chhattisgarh Versus Harsh Tandan & 4 other's, in the interest of justice. (v) Any other relief/order may also be granted that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3 The facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners are that on 23.11.2025, an FIR bearing Crime No. 0553/2025 was registered at Police Station-Pamgarh, District-Janjgir-Champa against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 296, 351 (3), 115 (2), 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNS) on the basis of a written complaint made by respondent No. 2 on 23.11.2025 stating that her marriage was solemnized on 14.04.2025 with the petitioner No. 1 and after the marriage, she stayed for about a week at Bilaspur and later on went to Nagpur to reside there along with her husband and in-laws. She was treated with cruelty by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law on the pretext of demand of dowry demanding a four 4 wheeler vehicle and Rs. 5 Lacs cash. She was assaulted by her husband upon which she intimated the matter to her parents and left her matrimonial house on 15.09.2025. On the basis of written complaint made by respondent No. 2, the police authorities registered the FIR as above and started the investigation. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet No. 508/2025 has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 13.12.2025 whereby learned court below has taken cognizance against the petitioners under section 85, 296, 115 (2), 3 (5) of the BNS and registered Criminal Case No. 1604/2025. 4 According to Mr. Shrivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 is the husband, petitioner No. 2 is the father-in-law, petitioner No. 3 is the mother-in-law, petitioner No. 4 is the sister-in-law (Nanand) and petitioner No. 5 is the Aunt (Bua Saas) of the respondent No. 2. the petitioners No. 2 to 4 were residing separately and they had a separate kitchen also but still they have been roped in this case. The respondent No.2 resided in her matrimonial house for a very short span of time and thereafter she returned back to her parental house. Because of some petty dispute between the husband and the wife, the respondent No. 2 (wife) demanded that both husband and wife should live separately from her in-laws. The petitioners have tried their level best to arrive at an amicable settlement but the respondent No. 2 is not at all agreeable to any arrangement and intends to send the entire family of the petitioner behind the bars. The petty family dispute has been tried to be given a colour of mental and physical harassment on the pretext of demand of dowry which is not at all the case. Hence, this petition deserves to be allowed and the FIR, the charge sheet as well as the order taking cognizance by the learned trial Court and the consequential criminal proceeding be quashed. 5 5 On the other hand Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that as soon as the police came to know about the commission of the cognizable offence, the FIR was registered and in the investigation, it is found that a case is made out against the petitioners. Placing reliance upon the settled principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings, learned State counsel submits that where the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court ought not to be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed and the petitioners be relegated to raise all factual and legal defences before the trial Court during the course of trial. 6 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7 On the last date of hearing, i.e. on 05.05.2026, this Court had directed the petitioner No. 1 (husband) to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the Mediation Centre of this Court within two weeks which was further to be paid to the respondent No. 2 on her appearance before the Mediation Centre and the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre for mediation and conciliation proceedings on 15.05.2026 and the matter was directed to be listed today alongwith the report of the Mediator. Till then, the further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1604/2025 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa was directed to be stayed. 8 It has been reported that till date, neither the parties appeared before the Mediation Centre nor the petitioner No. 1 deposited the amount as aforesaid which shows that the parties are not at all interested in amicable settlement. Hence, this Court proceeds to decide the matter on 6 merits. 9 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 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. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.). 10 From bare perusal of the FIR (Annexure A/1) it transpires that the the allegation levelled by the respondent No. 2 is that soon after her marriage with Harsh Tandon on 14.04.2025, he and his family members, including her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and aunt-in-law, began demanding additional dowry in the form of cash Rs. 5 Lakhs and a four- wheeler vehicle. She claims that when these demands were not met, she was subjected to continuous mental and physical harassment, including verbal abuse, threats, taunts about her rural background and education, and incidents of assault. She further alleges that her husband threatened to kill her if the dowry was not brought, while other family members repeatedly exerted pressure upon her to obtain money and a vehicle from her parents. The complaint further states that despite her parents having already provided marriage gifts, jewellery, a motorcycle, and allegedly Rs. 5 Lakhs in cash, the accused remained dissatisfied and continued to demand a four-wheeler vehicle and additional money. According to the complainant, due to the ongoing harassment and dowry demands, her husband and father-in-law eventually left her at her parental home on 7 15.09.2025, where she has been residing since. She alleges that the accused persons continue to contact and harass her, insisting that she can return to the matrimonial home only if she brings the demanded cash and vehicle. On these grounds, she seeks registration of an FIR against her husband and the named members of his family. Unparliamentary and derogatory remarks have also been alleged to have been made by the petitioners against the respondent No. 2/complainant. 11 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. A note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 12 In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) is extraordinary in nature and must be exercised sparingly, with great caution and only in exceptional cases. The Court emphasized that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court is only required to examine whether 8 the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage, the Court cannot assess the reliability of allegations, undertake a detailed examination of evidence, conduct a mini-trial, or interfere with an ongoing investigation except in rare cases where no offence is disclosed. 13 Reiterating these settled principles in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that disputed questions of fact, appreciation of evidence, and consideration of the defence of the accused fall within the domain of the trial Court. Criminal proceedings should not be quashed merely because the accused raises a plausible defence. The Court further held that quashing is justified only when the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and unimpeachable character, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains unrefuted by the complainant/prosecution, and continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 14 Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation cannot be said to be so absurd, inherently improbable or wholly devoid of substance as to warrant exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The prosecution case is founded upon a written complaint lodged by the complainant, statements of witnesses recorded during investigation. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. Whether the prosecution ultimately succeeds in establishing the allegations beyond reasonable doubt is a matter to be determined during trial. 9 15 Upon a cumulative consideration of the FIR, the charge-sheet and the material collected during investigation, this Court is satisfied that the allegations levelled against the petitioners, if taken at their face value and accepted as correct for the limited purpose of the present proceedings, disclose a prima facie case requiring adjudication by the competent criminal Court. The prosecution case is not founded merely upon vague or omnibus allegations but specific allegations have been levelled against each of the petitioners. 16 The law is well settled that the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, does not function as a trial Court and cannot undertake a roving enquiry into the truthfulness, reliability or admissibility of the evidence collected during investigation. 17 In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case does not fall within any of the categories illustratively enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrasturcture Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra) so as to warrant exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing the criminal proceedings at the threshold. The allegations levelled against the petitioners cannot be characterized as so absurd, inherently improbable, or manifestly frivolous that no prudent person could reasonably conclude that they disclose a prima facie case for proceeding further. 18 Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for quashing the FIR, the charge-sheet, the order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate and the Criminal Case bearing No. 1604/2025 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa. The petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 10 19 It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case pending before the trial Court. The trial Court shall proceed independently and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced before it. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.06.19 16:26:10 +0530