1 2026:CGHC:25563-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1588 of 2026 1 - Sheikh Shahid S/o Late Sheikh Majid, Aged About 45 Years R/o Bajrang Akhada, Chantapara, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Masoom Bano, W/o Late Sheikh Majid, Aged About 76 Years R/o Bajrang Akhada Chantapara, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Sheikh Aabid, S/o Late Sheikh Majid, Aged About 42 Years R/o Bajrang Akhada Chantapara, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Shaheena Tarannum, D/o Iqbal Hussain, Aged About 35 Years R/o Subhash Block S.E.C.L. Mudapar, Korba District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.06.23 17:34:52 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘B.N.S.S.’) with the following relief(s):- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire Criminal Proceeding in Criminal Case No. 2695/2019, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bilaspur, under Sections 498A, 34 & 377 of the Indian Penal Code, including the FIR bearing Crime No. 11/2019 dated 30.03.2019 & charge-sheet No. 22/2019 dated 12.06.2019 & framing of charge dated 30.09.2019, under Section 498A, 34 & 377 of the IPC, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 lodged a written complaint before Mahila Thana, Bilaspur on 30.03.2019 alleging that after her marriage with petitioner No. 1 on 28.06.2018, she was subjected to cruelty, harassment and dowry demands by her husband and his family members. She further alleged that petitioner No. 1 established unnatural sexual relations with her against her wishes and that the accused persons threatened, assaulted and ultimately forced her to leave the matrimonial home. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR bearing Crime No. 11/2019 was registered for offences under Sections 498-A, 377 and 34 IPC and, after investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. 3 4. Pursuant thereto, Criminal Case No. 2695/2019 came to be registered and charges were framed against the petitioners on 30.09.2022. The respondent No. 2 has also initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, while petitioner No. 1 is stated to have pronounced talaq in the year 2019. The petitioners are on anticipatory bail and, as on date, five prosecution witnesses have already been examined before the trial Court. Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, filing of the charge-sheet and continuation of the criminal proceedings, the petitioners have preferred the present petition seeking quashment of the entire proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings are nothing but an abuse of the process of law and deserve to be quashed. It is contended that the allegations made in the FIR are vague, omnibus and devoid of specific particulars, especially against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 (mother-in-law and brother-in-law), against whom no distinct overt act has been alleged. The complaint contains only general and sweeping allegations arising out of matrimonial discord, without any independent corroboration regarding alleged cruelty, dowry demand or harassment. It is further submitted that the complaint was lodged after considerable delay and the prosecution has failed to collect any cogent material to substantiate the allegations. 4 6. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations under Section 377 IPC are based solely upon the uncorroborated version of respondent No. 2 and are not supported by any medical, scientific or independent evidence. The charge-sheet has been filed mechanically and the learned trial Court framed charges without properly considering the absence of prima facie material, particularly against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. The continuation of the proceedings would therefore result in grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice, especially when the dispute essentially arises out of matrimonial differences and parallel proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act have also been initiated. 7. It is lastly submitted that the present case falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, Neelu Chopra v. Bharti and Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala, wherein it has been held that criminal proceedings based on vague and omnibus allegations, particularly against relatives of the husband, are liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of the process of Court. Therefore, the FIR, charge-sheet, order framing charge dated 30.09.2022 and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the FIR, statements of the victim and other 5 witnesses, as well as the material collected during investigation, prima facie disclose the commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 377 and 34 IPC. It is contended that the allegations involve disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS. Learned State counsel further submits that the trial has already substantially progressed; out of 13 prosecution witnesses, statements of 5 witnesses have already been recorded and the matter is at an advanced stage. Therefore, at this belated stage, no ground is made out for quashing the FIR, charge-sheet, order framing charge or the consequential criminal proceedings. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State counsel at length and have perused the material available on record. 10. It is also significant to note that the charge-sheet was filed as far back as in the year 2019, charges were framed on 30.09.2022 and the trial has substantially progressed. Out of the total 13 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, statements of 5 witnesses have already been recorded. Thus, the criminal proceedings are at an advanced stage and interference at this juncture would amount to stalling an ongoing trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that where the trial has substantially progressed and evidence has already been led, the 6 inherent jurisdiction for quashing should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. 11. Having regard to the nature of allegations, the material collected during investigation and the stage of the proceedings, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for exercising inherent powers to quash the FIR, charge-sheet, order framing charge or the consequential criminal proceedings. The petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all permissible factual and legal defences before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Any observation made herein is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not influence the trial on merits. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu