1 CGHC010250952026 2026:CGHC:29215-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1800 of 2026 Ankeet Mishra S/o Late Shri Pramod Chandra Mishra Aged About 43 Years R/o Plot No.C- 504, Magneto Signature Home Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Mahila Thana Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Smt Mansee Mishra W/o Ankeet Mishra Aged About 39 Years R/o Aparna Cyber Life Block No-E Flat No. 1105 Nalagandla Near Citizen Hospital Lingampalli, Hyderabad District Rangareddy. Telangana- 500019 ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13 .07.2026 1. Heard Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.13 17:26:18 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “1. Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned First Information Report registered against the petitioner vide Crime No. 28 of 2024, registered by Police Station City Mahila Thana, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh for offences under Sections 498- A, 406, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with charge-sheet/final report No. 22 of 2024 dated 30.03.2024 for offence under Section 498-A, 406 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 27.06.2024 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, Chhattisgarh has taken cognizance in Crime No. 28 of 2024 for offence under Section 498-A, 406 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 28 of 2024 for offence under Section 498-A, 406 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to secure the ends of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No.2 solemnized their marriage on 09.04.2008 at Cuttack, Odisha according to Hindu rites and customs, and out of the said wedlock a daughter, Misheeta Mishra, was born on 03.05.2013. After marriage, the parties initially resided at Korba and thereafter shifted to 3 Hyderabad owing to the petitioner's employment. Subsequently, the petitioner worked in Odisha for about one year and thereafter was transferred to Raipur, where the parties again started residing together. She further submitted that after about three months of residing at Raipur, respondent No. 2 left for Hyderabad along with the minor daughter and thereafter the parties started living separately. The petitioner continued to visit Hyderabad to meet his wife and daughter; however, respondent No.2 allegedly started behaving indifferently towards him, refused to cohabit with him and frequently humiliated and insulted him. Despite repeated efforts made by the petitioner and his family to restore the matrimonial relationship, respondent No.2 declined to return to the matrimonial home. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the father of respondent No.2 also insisted that the petitioner should take divorce and allegedly threatened that, in case he refused, he would be implicated in false criminal cases. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 demanded Rs.3,50,00,000/- along with transfer of the Hyderabad house in favour of the daughter under her guardianship and threatened to implicate the petitioner and his family members in false cases under the domestic violence and dowry laws if the said demands were not fulfilled. Apprehending false implication, the petitioner submitted several written complaints before various police authorities, including the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, Superintendent of Police, Bhubaneswar, Mahila Thana Gachibowli, Police Station Lingampalli, Police Station Chanda Nagar, Police Station Darri, Police Commissioner 4 Hyderabad, Mahila Thana Korba, Superintendent of Police Korba, Police Station Telibandha, Mahila Thana Raipur and Police Station Nayapalli. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that although the parties mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage, respondent No.2, through an e-mail dated 15.02.2023, demanded Rs.3.50 crores and imposed several conditions in the proposed memorandum of mutual divorce. The petitioner thereafter submitted a written complaint on 22.08.2023 before Police Station Chanda Nagar and also informed the concerned ACP through WhatsApp regarding the threats. Subsequently, the petitioner instituted a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) & (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act on 17.08.2023 before the Family Court, Raipur seeking dissolution of marriage, whereas respondent No.2 initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. She further submitted that respondent No.2 thereafter lodged a complaint before Mahila Thana, Raipur, pursuant to which Crime No.28/2024 was registered on 09.02.2024 for offences under Sections 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by order dated 20.02.2024. Thereafter, the police filed Charge-sheet No.22/2024 dated 30.03.2024, wherein the petitioner's parents were discharged for want of material, while the petitioner alone was charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC. Cognizance was thereafter taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur by order dated 27.06.2024. 5 6. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had earlier challenged the FIR by filing CRMP No.1166 of 2024, which was withdrawn pursuant to the order dated 06.10.2025 with liberty to challenge both the FIR and the consequential charge-sheet. During the pendency of the said petition, this Court, by order dated 09.05.2024, referred the parties to mediation and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.50,000/-, which was duly deposited on 22.05.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred CRMP No.1213 of 2026, which was also withdrawn by order dated 29.04.2026 with liberty to file a fresh petition. She also stated that the entire criminal prosecution is nothing but an offshoot of the matrimonial dispute and has been initiated only after the petitioner refused to accede to the monetary demands raised by respondent No.2. It is argued that the allegations in the FIR are vague, omnibus and highly belated, alleging incidents from the year 2008, whereas the parties have admittedly been residing separately since 2019 and no complaint alleging dowry demand or cruelty was ever lodged till 2023-2024. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even if the allegations contained in the FIR and the charge-sheet are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 498-A, 406 or 506 IPC. It is further contended that there is no specific allegation regarding entrustment or dishonest misappropriation so as to attract Section 406 IPC, nor is there any allegation showing criminal intimidation with intent to cause alarm under Section 506 IPC. It is lastly submitted that the continuation of the 6 criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the impugned FIR dated 09.02.2024 in Crime No.28/2024, the Charge-sheet No.22/2024 dated 30.03.2024 and the cognizance order dated 27.06.2024 deserve to be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the impugned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint disclosing commission of cognizable offences. After conducting a detailed investigation, the Investigating Agency collected sufficient material and filed charge-sheet No.22/2024 dated 30.03.2024 before the competent Court. It is submitted that upon consideration of the charge-sheet and the material collected during investigation, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, by order dated 27.06.2024, has rightly taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of the IPC against the present petitioner. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences and, therefore, the correctness, truthfulness and reliability of such allegations cannot be examined by this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C (now 528 of the BNSS). It is also contended that the grounds urged by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which can only be adjudicated upon during the course of trial after appreciation of evidence and not in proceedings for quashing of the FIR and consequential charge-sheet. 7 9. Learned State counsel further submits that as per the order- sheets of the learned trial Court, the criminal case is presently fixed for framing of charges. However, despite the matter being at the stage of charge, the petitioner has not been appearing before the trial Court and has been filing applications seeking exemption from personal appearance on one pretext or another, thereby delaying the proceedings. It is, therefore, submitted that the present petition has been filed only to stall the trial and deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the material placed on record. 11. On a careful consideration of the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction is made out. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, including the plea that the FIR is a counterblast to the matrimonial dispute, that the allegations are vague, that the parties have been residing separately since the year 2019 and that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC are not made out, are all matters involving disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. At this stage, the Court is only required to examine whether the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. This Court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or appreciate the evidence collected by the prosecution. 8 12. It is also not in dispute that after completion of investigation, the police have filed charge-sheet No.22/2024 dated 30.03.2024, and upon consideration thereof, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur has taken cognizance by order dated 27.06.2024. Furthermore, as is evident from the order-sheets of the learned trial Court, the matter is presently pending at the stage of framing of charges. The order- sheets further reveal that instead of participating in the proceedings, the petitioner has repeatedly sought exemption from personal appearance, resulting in delay in the progress of the trial. In such circumstances, this Court finds no justification to interdict the criminal proceedings at this advanced stage. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned FIR, the consequential charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance do not warrant interference in exercise of inherent powers. The present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner shall appear before the learned trial Court and cooperate in the expeditious conclusion of the trial, which shall proceed in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan