1 2026:CGHC:6144-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 373 of 2026 Puneet Chaturvedi S/o Jai Prakash Chaturvedi, Aged About 37 Years R/o Mirshadpur, Badlapur, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh (As Per Correct Details) ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Dhourpur, District- Sarguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Mr. Surbhit Upadhyay and Mr. Sudhir Mehrotra (though VC) Advocates For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 04.02.2026 1 Heard Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Mr. Surbhit Upadhyay and Mr. Sudhir Mehrotra (through video conferencing), learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent. 2 The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned FIR dated ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 13.12.2025 registered by Investigating Officer Ramdhani Ram (Sub-Inspector) at P.S. Dhourpur, District – Sarguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS in Crime No. 0057/2025 lodged against the petitioner, who is son-in-law of the deceased Omprakash Upadhyay with the following prayer :- “That in view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the F.I.R. dated 13.12.2025 registered at Police Station Dhourpur, District Sarguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh, in Crime No. 0057/2025 for the offence under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, and pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. An affidavit in support of the petition is filed herewith.” 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged with an oblique motive to harass and pressurize the petitioner due to a long-standing matrimonial dispute as the same has been registered after an unexplained and inordinate delay of nearly two months, which itself creates serious doubt on the authenticity and genuineness of the allegations, thereby rendering the prosecution case unreliable. They further argued that the Investigating Agency deliberately ignored and suppressed the dying declaration of the deceased Om Prakash Upadhyay, wherein he categorically stated that he 3 was under no pressure, that he acted out of his own free will, and that the petitioner (his son-in-law) had been falsely implicated, which vitiates the entire investigation. They further argued that the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are completely absent in the present case, and even if the allegations contained in the F.I.R. are taken at their face value, no prima facie offence is made out against the petitioner. It has been contended that the deceased himself, during his lifetime, had given statements before the police authorities clearly absolving the petitioner of any wrongdoing and had raised serious allegations against other persons, which have been conveniently omitted from the impugned F.I.R. The wife of the petitioner, in connivance with her alleged paramour Pramod Tiwari, has been continuously lodging false and frivolous complaints against the petitioner before different forums only to extort money and harass him, and the present F.I.R. is a continuation of such abuse of process. 4 It has been further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had himself lodged F.I.R.s and pursued legal remedies against Pramod Tiwari and other family members of his wife, wherein the police, after investigation, found no substance in the allegations made against the petitioner and filed Final Reports in his favour. They further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has already stayed the criminal proceedings arising 4 out of the same set of facts in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and continuation of the present proceedings would amount to multiplicity of litigation and gross misuse of judicial process. They also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is a law-abiding citizen, and his implication in the present case is solely based on bald, vague, and omnibus allegations without any supporting evidence. The petitioner is a single parent of a pre-term minor girl child, who is entirely dependent upon him, and his arrest or continued prosecution would cause irreparable harm not only to the petitioner but also to the welfare and future of the minor child, therefore, continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law and would defeat the ends of justice, hence, the same may be quashed. 5 On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the present petition and submits that as per the prosecution case, the petitioner has taken loan in the name of daughter of the deceased Omprakash Upadhyay and he was made guarantor and when the loan recovery agents are pressuring the deceased to pay the loan amount from the deceased as he was the guarantor, in lieu of the same, he has committed suicide. He further submitted that the impugned F.I.R. clearly discloses commission of a cognizable offence. At the stage of quashing, this Hon’ble Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made 5 out, and not to assess the veracity of the allegations or conduct a mini-trial. The alleged delay in lodging the F.I.R. is not fatal and stands explained by the nature of the dispute and surrounding circumstances. Delay by itself cannot be a ground for quashing and is a matter for trial. He further argued that the plea regarding the alleged dying declaration and suppression of material is a disputed question of fact. Its evidentiary value can only be examined during investigation or trial and cannot be relied upon at this stage. He contended that allegations of false implication due to matrimonial discord, prior litigation, or personal enmity are defensive pleas involving disputed facts, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 6 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance and the materials placed on record. 7 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918, has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has 6 emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 8 It has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, that the proceedings relating to cognizable ofences cannot be interfered except on certain grounds enumerated by the Apex Court in the said judgment. It is evident that, none of the grounds mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment are attracted in the present case. In State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & others reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of cognizable ofence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR. Also what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. 9 In the present case, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings primarily on the grounds of alleged false implication, delay in lodging the FIR, and the contention that the Investigating Agency deliberately ignored and suppressed the dying declaration of the deceased Om Prakash Upadhyay, 7 wherein he categorically stated that he was under no pressure and that he acted out of his own free will and further the allegations even if taken at face value do not constitute an offence under Section 108 of BNS. 10 It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, this Court does not conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the probative value of evidence. The defence sought to be raised by the petitioner, including reliance on hospital attendance registers, alleged telephonic conversations, delay in lodging the FIR, and the plea of consent or false implication, raises disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence and cross-examination, and therefore cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The plea of alibi is a matter of defence and cannot be examined in proceedings for quashing. 11 Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the impugned F.I.R. discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and contains specific allegations which, if taken at their face value, prima facie attract the offence alleged. The contentions raised by the petitioner regarding delay in lodging the F.I.R., alleged suppression of the dying declaration, false implication due to matrimonial discord, and prior litigation are all matters involving disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 8 12 This Court further finds that the plea that the essential ingredients of Section 108 of the BNS are not made out is premature and cannot be examined at this stage. The scope of interference under the inherent jurisdiction is limited, and this Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or sufficiency of evidence. The case does not fall within the exceptional categories warranting exercise of inherent powers for quashing criminal proceedings. 13 In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference is made out. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The Investigating Agency shall proceed in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra