1 2026:CGHC:25346-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1269 of 2026 1 - Suraj Nishad S/o Shri Chandel Nishad Aged About 25 Years R/o Lalkhadan, P.S. Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chandel Nishad S/o Shri Kejau Ram Nishad Aged About 49 Years R/o Lalkhadan, P.S. Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Seema Nishad W/o Shri Chandel Nishad Aged About 45 Years R/o Lalkhadan, P.S. Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Surekha Nishad W/o Shri Ravindra Nishad Aged About 24 Years R/o Lalkhadan, P.S. Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Mahila Thana Distt Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Gayatri Nishad W/o Suraj Nishad Aged About 24 Years R/o Malhar, P.S. - Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himashu Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Shyam Kumar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.06.23 10:28:18 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Himashu Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent / State as well as Mr. Shyam Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for following relief:- “i. First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 19/2025 dated 12/02/2025 u/s 85,296,115(2), 351(2),3(5)of B.N.S 2023 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh; ii. The consequential Chargesheet bearing No. 29/2025 dated 17/04/2025 of Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, arising out of the aforesaid FIR, filed for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 85,296,115(2), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; iii. The order dated 01/05/2025 of Criminal Case no. 15064/2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh taking cognizance of the aforementioned charge sheet; iv. And The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 15064/25 titled 'State of Chhattisgarh vs. Suraj Nishad and Others', pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between petitioner No.1, Suraj Nishad, and respondent No.2/complainant, Gayatri Nishad, was solemnized on 19.04.2024 at Village Malhar in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the parties resided together at the matrimonial home situated at Lalkhadan, Bilaspur. According to the petitioners, upon learning in 3 July, 2024 that respondent No.2 was pregnant, petitioner No.1 took due care of her health and medical treatment and regularly facilitated her visits to her parental home. However, on 10.12.2024, the sister of respondent No.2 allegedly came to the matrimonial home and took respondent No.2 along with all her medical documents, after which she did not return to the matrimonial home despite repeated efforts made by petitioner No.1. Consequently, petitioner No.1 prepared a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights on 03.02.2025 and, upon the failure of reconciliation efforts, instituted the said proceedings before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur on 12.02.2025. On the very same day, respondent No.2 lodged a written complaint before Mahila Thana, Bilaspur alleging demand of dowry and cruelty by the petitioners, stating that although sufficient articles were given at the time of marriage, a motorcycle and refrigerator were not provided and, after about two months of marriage, she was subjected to taunts and harassment by her in-laws and husband on account thereof. Based on the said complaint, FIR No.19/2025 was registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bilaspur for offences punishable under Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners contend that the criminal proceedings are a counterblast to the matrimonial proceedings initiated by petitioner No.1 and further assert that due to continuous harassment allegedly meted out by 4 respondent No.2 and her family members, petitioner No.1 attempted suicide and was admitted to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for treatment, whereafter petitioner No.3 submitted complaints before the police authorities on 27.03.2025. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 also submitted complaints before the concerned police authorities on 22.04.2025, while respondent No.2 instituted proceedings under Sections 12 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 03.07.2025. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3 submitted further representations before the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur on 19.02.2026 and 03.03.2026 seeking registration of an FIR on the basis of their complaints. However, according to the petitioners, no effective action was taken and only a report under Section 155 Cr.P.C. was issued. Meanwhile, upon completion of investigation in the impugned FIR, the police filed Charge-sheet No.29/2025 dated 17.04.2025 before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur for offences under Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the present petitioners. Thereafter, by order dated 01.05.2025, the learned trial Court took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and proceeded with the criminal case, fixing the matter for consideration on charge, which remains pending for framing of charges. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petitioners are innocent persons who have been falsely implicated 5 in the instant case on account of matrimonial discord between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. It is contended that the allegations levelled in the FIR as well as the charge-sheet do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged and are based upon vague, general and omnibus accusations devoid of any specific instances or overt acts attributable to the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the impugned FIR dated 12.02.2025 came to be registered immediately after petitioner No.1 initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights, thereby indicating that the criminal proceedings are a counterblast to the matrimonial proceedings and have been instituted with an oblique motive to harass the petitioners. It is further submitted that ordinary matrimonial disagreements and domestic differences have been given the colour of criminal offences, resulting in abuse of the process of law. Particular emphasis is laid on the fact that petitioner No.4, being merely the sister-in-law of the complainant, has also been implicated without any specific allegation regarding her involvement. Learned counsel submits that the law is well settled that relatives of the husband cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution on the basis of sweeping and omnibus allegations in the absence of specific material demonstrating their active participation in the alleged offence. It is further argued that the parties admittedly cohabited during the relevant period and the allegations of cruelty are inherently improbable and 6 unsupported by any independent material. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141, wherein it has been held that general and omnibus allegations against the relatives of the husband are insufficient to compel them to undergo the rigours of a criminal trial. Reliance is also placed on Rajesh Sharma and Others v. State of U.P. and Another, (2018) 10 SCC 472, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed concern regarding the tendency to implicate all family members of the husband in matrimonial disputes. On the strength of the aforesaid facts and settled legal principles, learned counsel submits that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court and, therefore, the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the impugned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint made by respondent No.2 alleging cruelty, harassment and demand of dowry at the hands of the petitioners. It is submitted that the allegations disclosed in the complaint prima facie constitute cognizable offences and, therefore, the police rightly registered the FIR and conducted investigation in accordance with law. Learned State counsel further submits that upon completion of investigation, sufficient material was found against the petitioners and accordingly charge-sheet has already 7 been filed before the competent Court, which has taken cognizance of the offences. It is argued that the allegations made in the FIR cannot be said to be inherently improbable or absurd so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Whether the allegations are true or false, whether the petitioners are innocent, and whether the prosecution will ultimately succeed are all disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated upon during trial on the basis of evidence led by the parties. It is, therefore, submitted that at this stage no case for quashment of the FIR, charge-sheet or consequential criminal proceedings is made out and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant opposes the petition and supports the impugned FIR as well as the consequential criminal proceedings. It is submitted that respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty, harassment and persistent demands for dowry by the petitioners soon after the marriage and, being left with no other efficacious remedy, she was constrained to lodge the complaint before the Mahila Police Station. Learned counsel submits that the allegations contained in the FIR are specific and disclose the commission of cognizable offences, which were duly investigated by the police and culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet against the petitioners. It is further contended that the defence sought to be raised by the petitioners, including the plea that the criminal case is a 8 counterblast to the proceedings instituted under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Learned counsel submits that the truthfulness, veracity and evidentiary value of the allegations can only be examined during trial and not at the stage of quashment. It is argued that the petitioners are attempting to seek appreciation of evidence and determination of factual disputes, which is impermissible while exercising inherent jurisdiction. Therefore, it is submitted that as the FIR, charge- sheet and material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the commission of offences, no ground for interference is made out and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the documents and material placed on record along with the petition. 8. This Court has also perused the mediation report dated 16.06.2026. The report reveals that despite the petitioner not complying with the earlier direction of this Court to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to respondent No.2 and expressing his inability to do so on account of financial constraints, respondent No.2 nevertheless appeared before the learned Mediator and expressed her willingness to resume cohabitation with petitioner No.1. However, owing to differences regarding the terms of 9 settlement and lack of mutual consensus, the mediation proceedings ultimately failed and were reported as “Not Settled”. 9. This Court is of the considered opinion that no case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is made out. It is well settled that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection. In the celebrated case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the parameters governing the exercise of such jurisdiction and has held that quashment is justified only in exceptional cases where the allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides. Likewise, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that while exercising jurisdiction for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or appreciate the evidence collected during investigation and that where the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the criminal proceedings ought not to be interdicted at the threshold. 10. In the present case, the FIR contains allegations of cruelty, harassment and demand of dowry against the petitioners. Upon investigation, the police have found sufficient material to submit a charge-sheet and the learned trial Court has already taken 10 cognizance of the offences. Whether the allegations are ultimately proved or not is a matter to be examined during trial on the basis of evidence led by the parties. At this stage, this Court cannot enter into an appreciation of the defence put forth by the petitioners or adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact. The contention that the FIR is a counterblast to the proceedings initiated under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and that the allegations are false are matters which require evidentiary examination and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 11. This Court has also taken note of the mediation report dated 16.06.2026, which indicates that although both petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 expressed willingness to resume matrimonial life, the parties could not arrive at an amicable settlement due to unresolved disputes and conditions imposed by each side. The said report itself reflects that the matrimonial discord between the parties continues to subsist and, therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that the criminal proceedings have become wholly unnecessary or devoid of substratum. 12. So far as the reliance placed by the petitioners on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam (supra) and Rajesh Sharma (supra) is concerned, there can be no quarrel with the legal proposition that relatives of the husband should not be compelled to face criminal prosecution on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations. However, the applicability of the said judgments would depend 11 upon the facts of each case. In the present matter, the investigating agency, after conducting investigation, has submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioners and this Court does not find the case to be one falling within the exceptional categories warranting interference at the threshold. 13. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the contentions raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact which can appropriately be adjudicated by the trial Court during the course of trial. No ground is made out for quashing of FIR No.19/2025, the charge-sheet arising therefrom, or the consequential criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 15064/2025 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet