1 2026:CGHC:26859-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2894 of 2025 1 - Balkrishna Verma Alias Chotu S/o Lt. Khilavan Singh Verma Aged About 37 Years R/o Sai Vatika, Dev Puri Raipur,p.S. Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Menka Verma W/o Omprakash Verma Aged About 42 Years R/o Deep Electrical Murmunda (Chandni) Chowk, Village- Murmunda, P.S. Ahivara, District- Durg C.G. 3 - Gori Bai Verma W/o Lt. Khilavan Singh Verma Aged About 65 Years R/o Sai Vatika, Dev Puri Raipur P.S. Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bhatapara City, District- Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Nagma Verma W/o Balkrishna Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Parsuram Ward, Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRMP No. 2927 of 2025 Balakrishna Verma Alias Chotu S/o Lt. Khilavan Singh Verma, Aged About 37 Years R/o Sai Vatika, Dev Puri Raipur, P.S.- Tikrapara, District - Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Bhatapara City, District - Balodabazar (C.G.) KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.07.07 10:30:09 +0530 2 2 - Nagma Verma, W/o Balakrishna Verma, Aged About 35 Years R/o Parsuram Ward Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Aditya Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Soumya Rai, Deputy GA. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Roop Naik, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , CJ & Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order On Board Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ 01/07/2026 CRMP No. 2894 of 2025 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition and prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. To kindly quash the FIR dated 15/09/2022 bearing crime no -391/2022 Registered by the police Station Bhatapara City under section 498-A and 34 of Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners. ii. To kindly quash the Final Report bearing No.422/2022 dated 06/12/2022 filed against the Petitioners under sections 498-A and 34 of Indian Penal Code. iii. To Kindly quash the Charges framed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatapara against the Petitioners under Section 498-A and 34 of Indian Penal Code vide order dated 27.03.2023. iv. To Kindly quash the entire criminal proceedings arisen thereby bearing Criminal Case No.1010/ 2022, which is registered vide order sheet dated 3 07.12.2022 and is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhatapara, Dist. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (CG), in the larger interest of justice. v. And/or pass any other Order/Direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties would submit that in the present case, the trial is at the verge of its completion and the statement of the accused has also been recorded. Hence, there appears to be no ground for quashing of the proceeding of Criminal Case No.1010/2022 arising out of Crime No.391/2022 registered by the police Station Bhatapara City for offence under section 498-A and 34 of Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners. Thus, the CRMP No.2894 of 2025 filed for quashing of the aforesaid criminal proceedings is hereby rejected. CRMP No. 2927 of 2025 3. The petitioner has filed the present Petition and prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) To Kindly quash the FIR dated 18/01/2024 bearing crime no-33/2024 Registered by the police Station Bhatapara City under section 195 A, 294, 506 of Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner. (ii) To kindly quash the Chargesheet bearing No.29/2024 dated 08/02/2024 filed against the Petitioner under Sections 195 A, 294, 506 of Indian Penal Code. (iii) To Kindly quash the entire criminal proceedings arisen thereby bearing Criminal Case No.416/2024, which is registered vide order sheet dated 19.03.2024 and is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhatapara, 4 Dist.:Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (CG), in the interest of justice. (iv) And/or Pass any other Order/Direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the petitioner/husband and respondent No.2/wife were married on 5.2.2017 in accordance with Hindu customs and rituals at Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara. Out of their relations, a male child was born on 10.2.2021. Initially, the parties had a cordial matrimonial relations, however, thereafter their relations deteriorated due to unreasonable, impractical and coercive demands of respondent No.2/wife, which led to regular discord and domestic disharmony. On account of persistent acts of mental cruelty, false allegations and harassment, respondent No.2/wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home on 22.12.2021 and since then she has been residing at her parental home. Among other baseless accusations, the respondent No.2/wife falsely alleged illicit relationship between the petitioner and his sister-in-law. 5. On account of continuous cruelty, the petitioner was constrained to file a civil suit under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of judicial separation before the family Court, Baloda Bazar. Vide order dated 24.4.2023 the family Court has held that the petitioner has been subjected to cruelty and harassment by the respondent No.2/wife and accordingly granted the decree of judicial separation. 5 As a counterblast, the respondent No.2/wife filed a complaint on 15.9.2022 on the basis of which FIR No.391/2022 was registered at PS Bhatapara City under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC. 6. In spite of pending proceeding, respondent No.2/wife had also filed another case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 7.12.2022 (vide Misc. Criminal Case No.9/2023). During those proceedings, on 12.7.2024, the petitioner’s application for visitation right to meet his son was allowed by the JMFC, Bhatapara. During the pendency of the aforesaid criminal proceedings, respondent No.2/wife filed the impugned FIR bearing No.33/2024 stating that on 25.11.2023, the petitioner threatened her to withdraw the pending criminal case and abused her and her family members. Based on the impugned FIR No.33/2024, a final report/charge-sheet was submitted on 8.2.2024 under Sections 195A, 294 and 506 of the IPC. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhatapara has taken cognizance in criminal case No.416/2024 vide order dated 19.3.2024 without application of mind and mechanically proceeded with the matter despite absence of a prima facie case against the petitioner. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner made efforts to resolve the dispute amicably and had withdrawn CRMP No.468/2023 concerning FIR No.391/2022 by mutual consent. Subsequently, divorce petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act filed before the 6 family Court, Raipur on 9.5.2024 was also withdrawn on 30.1.2025. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present petition deserves to be allowed as the impugned FIR and the consequent criminal proceedings are nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law. Even if the allegations contained in FIR No. 33/2024 are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 195A, 294 and 506 of the IPC. The allegations are vague, omnibus and bereft of the necessary particulars or evidentiary foundation required to sustain a criminal prosecution. The entire FIR is founded upon bald and unsubstantiated assertions without any corroboration to support the allegations of criminal intimidation, threats or obscene conduct. It is further submitted that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 25.11.2023, which admittedly was a court holiday, as reflected from the official order of the trial Court. On the said date, the petitioner was not present before the Court, nor was there any material whatsoever to establish his presence near the residence of the respondent-wife. This glaring contradiction between the official court record and the allegations made in the FIR completely demolishes the prosecution case and clearly indicates that the complaint is false, fabricated and malicious. It is further submitted that there is an unexplained delay 7 of nearly two months in lodging the FIR, although the incident occurred on 25.11.2023 whereas the FIR came to be registered only in January, 2024, without any plausible explanation. Such unexplained delay renders the allegations inherently doubtful and gives rise to a reasonable inference that the complaint is an afterthought and has been instituted with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioner. 9. It is further submitted that the present FIR is not an isolated proceeding but forms part of a consistent pattern of vindictive and retaliatory litigation initiated by the respondent-wife solely to wreak vengeance from the petitioner. The family Court, after full- fledged adjudication, had already granted a decree of judicial separation in favour of the petitioner on 24.04.2023 on the ground of cruelty committed by the respondent-wife, thereby recording a judicial finding against her conduct. Thereafter, the respondent/wife initiated a series of proceedings, including FIR No. 391/2022 under Section 498A IPC, proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and thereafter the present FIR No. 33/2024, all of which unmistakably demonstrate a calculated attempt to misuse the criminal justice system as a counterblast to the judicial separation proceedings and to exert undue pressure on the petitioner. The petitioner, on the contrary, had acted bona fide and made sincere efforts to amicably resolve the matrimonial 8 dispute by withdrawing his petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as CRMP No. 468/2023 on the basis of assurances extended by the respondent for an amicable settlement. A draft settlement deed was also prepared with the consent and involvement of both parties and their respective legal representatives; however, the respondent subsequently resiled from the agreed terms without any legal justification, thereby frustrating the settlement process. It is also submitted that the JMFC, Bhatapara, by order dated 12.07.2024, granted visitation rights to the petitioner in respect of his minor son, which itself demonstrates that no Court has found the petitioner to be a threat either to the child or to the respondent/wife. Even the challenge preferred against the said order resulted in directions for mediation, further establishing that the petitioner has throughout pursued lawful and peaceful resolution of the matrimonial disputes. 10.It is therefore submitted that when the entire chronology of events and the material placed on record are considered in their proper perspective, it becomes manifest that the present criminal proceedings are a sheer abuse of process of law and have been initiated only as a counterblast to the matrimonial proceedings instituted by the petitioner. A bare perusal of the final report/charge-sheet submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also fails to disclose the commission of any 9 offence against the petitioner, and the same is wholly misconceived, unsustainable and devoid of any legal foundation. Continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings would amount to a travesty of justice, causing irreparable prejudice to the petitioner’s reputation, liberty and mental peace. Therefore, the impugned FIR, the consequential charge-sheet and all further proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that the allegations made in the subject FIR are neither vague nor omnibus in nature and disclose the commission of cognizable offence. It is further submitted that on 18.9.2025, the matter was referred to the Mediation Center and the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Centre on 25.9.2025 in order to explore the possibility of amicable settlement of the dispute through mediation. In compliance of the said order, both the parties appeared before the Mediator and participated in the mediation proceeding. However, the mediation has failed. In view of above, it would be futile exercise for sending the matter again before the Mediation Center. But he could not dispute that respondent No.2 has received Rs.50,000/- in the mediation proceeding which was to be paid to her on her appearance. 12.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 10 13. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: - “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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. 11 (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the 12 accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2016) 9 SCC 1 held as under:- “35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Code, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Kal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was held as under:- “29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power 13 vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as 14 would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied 15 upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arisingt therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 15. In the matter of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, the Supreme Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. It was held as under: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 16 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” (emphasis supplied) 16. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), the Supreme Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17 17. From perusal of the pleadings, it appears that marriage of the petitioner/husband and respondent No.2/wife was solemnized on 5.2.2017. On 22.12.2021 the respondent-wife voluntarily left her matrimonial home. It further appears that the petitioner-husband filed a civil suit under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a divorce and vide order dated 24.4.2023, the family Court Baloda Bazar granted the decree of judicial separation in favour of the petitioner holding that the petitioner has been subjected to cruelty and harassment by respondent/wife. As a counterblast, respondent/wife filed a complaint on 15.9.2022 on the basis of which FIR No.391/2022 was registered under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC. The respondent/wife had also filed case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act on 7.12.2022 and during the pendency of aforesaid criminal proceedings the respondent/wife had filed the impugned FIR No.33/2024, on the basis of which final report/charge sheet was filed on 8.2.2024 under Sections 195A, 294 and 506 of the IPC, and the JMFC, Bhatapara has taken cognizance in Criminal Case No.416/2024. 18. Perusal of the FIR does not disclose the ingredients of any cognizable offence under Sections 195A, 294 and 506 of the IPC and the same is being used as a weapon for malicious prosecution 18 just to harass the petitioner/husband. 19. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, material available on record, perusing the FIR in which no specific allegations have been made and only bald and omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Sections 195-A, 294 & 506 of the IPC is made out for prosecuting petitioner – Balakrishna Verma @ Chotu for the above-stated offences. 20. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, Criminal Case No.416/2024 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara arising out of Crime No.33/2024 registered at Police Station Bhatapara City for offence under Sections 195-A, 294 & 506 of the IPC and the charge sheet dated 8.2.2024 filed against the Petitioner – Balakrishna Verma @ Chotu for the aforesaid offences is quashed. 21. The present Petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Barve