1 CGHC010266852026 2026:CGHC:30125-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1835 of 2026 Jaideep Singh S/o Lt. Malkit Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Shastri Nagar, Near Bhaskar Hospital, Karm Chari Nagar, Rampur, District- Bareily, U.P. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Police Station- Akaltara, District- Janjgir- Champa, C.G. 2 - T. S. Pattavi R/o Nayapara, Santoshi Mandir Chowk, Sirgitti, Bilaspur, C.G. 3 - Hemlata Yadav W/o Late Rakesh Kumar Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Ram Rani Bada, Jagmal Chowk, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr.Prakash Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.1-State : Mr.Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.07.2026 1. Heard Mr.Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.07.17 10:36:23 +0530 2 Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘B.N.S.S.’) with the following relief(s):- “A. The impugned F.I.R. No. 630/2023 dated 16.12.2023 lodged at Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) under section 306/34, of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the present applicant; B. The Chargesheet No. 597/2025 dated 26.12.2025 filed before JMFC Akaltara (District Janjgir Champa C.G) filed in F.I.R. No. 630/2023 dated 16.12.2023 lodged at Police Station Akaltara, District-Janjgir Champa (C.G.) under section 306/34, of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the present applicant; C. The cognisance order dated 02.01.2026 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa (C.G) in Crime No. 630/2023 (Wrongly mentioned as 630/2025), wherein cognisance has been taken against the present applicant under section 306/34, of Indian Penal Code, 1860; and D. The order dated 22.04.2026, passed by Ld. Sessions Judge Janjgir; District Janjgir-Champa, in Sessions trial No. 49 of 2026, wherein the criminal proceedings have been committed before the Ld. trial Court registered under section 3 306/34, of Indian Penal Code, 1860; along with order of Framing of charges dated 25.05.2026 passed by Learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2026. E. and also praying for dismissal of all the proceedings pending before Ld. Sessions Judge Janjgir; District Janjgir-Champa, in Sessions trial No. 49 of 2026 under section 306/34, of Indian Penal Code, 1860 emanating thereto with respect to the present applicant in the ends of justice.” 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased, Rakesh Kumar Yadav, committed suicide on 10.11.2023 at his railway quarter situated in Railway Colony, Akaltara. During the course of investigation, the police allegedly recovered a suicide note from the spot wherein the deceased purportedly attributed his extreme step to the continuous harassment and threats allegedly extended by Laxmi Yadav, her family members, namely Krishna Bai Yadav, Ram Yadav and Laxman Yadav, as well as the present petitioner. 4. According to the prosecution, the deceased was earlier proposed to be married to Laxmi Yadav; however, the marriage proposal was subsequently cancelled. It is alleged that after the cancellation of the proposed marriage, disputes arose between the deceased and Laxmi Yadav along with her family members. The prosecution further alleges that on 31.12.2022, the deceased was threatened and assaulted by Laxmi Yadav and her family members after he refused to marry her. 4 Thereafter, the deceased solemnized marriage with another woman on 02.01.2023. Subsequently, on 08.01.2023, a criminal case was registered against the deceased on the complaint of Laxmi Yadav, pursuant to which he was arrested by Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, and remanded to judicial custody. The prosecution alleges that the cumulative effect of the aforesaid incidents, coupled with the alleged threats and harassment meted out by the accused persons, including the present petitioner, drove the deceased to commit suicide. It is further alleged that the name of the present petitioner finds mention in the suicide note as one of the persons responsible for mental harassment suffered by the deceased. 5. On the basis of the suicide note and other materials collected during investigation, FIR No. 630/2023 dated 16.12.2023 was registered at Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed Charge-sheet No. 597/2025 against the co-accused persons while showing the present petitioner as an absconding accused. The case was initially registered as Criminal Case No. 03/2026 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara, and was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions, where it came to be registered as Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2026. Charges have subsequently been framed against the accused persons. Hence, this petition. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the 5 impugned FIR dated 16.12.2023, the consequential Charge-sheet No. 597/2025 dated 26.12.2025, the order dated 02.01.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara declaring the petitioner as an absconding accused, the order of committal dated 22.04.2026, as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are wholly illegal, arbitrary and deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to establish even a prima facie case against the petitioner. The undisputed material on record demonstrates that the petitioner had resigned from ICICI Bank, Bilaspur on 15.07.2022, permanently left Bilaspur on 21.07.2022, and joined HDFC Bank, Rampur (U.P.) as a Senior Manager on 01.08.2022. Thus, the petitioner had shifted from Chhattisgarh nearly sixteen months prior to the alleged incident of suicide, which occurred on 10.11.2023. In the absence of any proximity in time or any continuing interaction with the deceased, the essential requirement of a live and proximate link between the alleged acts of the petitioner and the commission of suicide is completely absent. 7. It is further submitted that the entire dispute, as reflected from the prosecution case itself, pertains to the personal relationship between the deceased and one Laxmi Yadav, whose proposed marriage with the deceased was cancelled, followed by disputes between them and her family members. Thereafter, the deceased married another woman and was subsequently arrested in a criminal case instituted on the complaint 6 of Laxmi Yadav. The petitioner had absolutely no connection with these personal disputes. Merely because Laxmi Yadav had at one point of time worked as a domestic help at the petitioner's residence during his stay at Bilaspur does not establish any nexus between the petitioner and the alleged offence. Learned counsel argues that even if the allegations contained in the FIR, the charge-sheet and the suicide note are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the commission of any offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. There is no allegation of any overt act, intentional aid, instigation or active participation on the part of the petitioner which could satisfy the ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC. There is no material to demonstrate any mens rea on the part of the petitioner or any conduct intended to drive the deceased to commit suicide. 8. It is further submitted that the prosecution has mechanically relied upon the alleged suicide note. Merely mentioning the name of a person in a suicide note, without attributing any specific act of instigation or intentional aid, is insufficient to attract criminal liability under Section 306 IPC. Significantly, the suicide note itself allegedly refers to one "Hardeep Singh", whereas the petitioner has been implicated despite the absence of any clear identification, thereby reflecting a casual and mechanical investigation. Learned counsel also assails the conduct of the Investigating Officer in declaring the petitioner as an absconding accused. It is submitted that the petitioner was never absconding. Throughout the relevant period, he was openly employed with HDFC Bank, Rampur (U.P.), residing with his family and maintaining regular 7 employment records. The Investigating Officer made no genuine effort to ascertain the petitioner's whereabouts through elementary means such as employment records, Provident Fund details, or local inquiries. The petitioner became aware of the criminal case only upon receiving information through local bank officials, whereafter he immediately approached this Hon'ble Court and was granted anticipatory bail. Such conduct itself demonstrates that the petitioner had never attempted to evade the process of law. 9. It is also contended that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to a gross abuse of the process of Court. The case squarely falls within the categories enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it has been held that criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed where the allegations made in the FIR, even if accepted at their face value, do not constitute any offence against the accused. 10. In support of the above submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Arjunan v. State represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315, wherein it has been held that the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 306 IPC are the existence of abetment coupled with the intention of the accused to instigate or intentionally aid the commission of suicide. Mere harassment or use of abusive language, in the absence of evidence indicating an intention to provoke the 8 deceased to commit suicide, would not constitute the offence of abetment. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122, wherein it has been held that the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, is empowered to quash criminal proceedings where continuation thereof would amount to abuse of the process of Court or where no offence is disclosed even if the allegations are accepted in their entirety. On the strength of these submissions, learned counsel prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned FIR, the charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings pending against the petitioner, as continuation of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law and would result in grave miscarriage of justice. 11. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet have been filed after due investigation, during which sufficient material was collected disclosing a prima facie case against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. It is contended that the suicide note allegedly recovered during the investigation specifically names the petitioner along with the other accused persons and attributes acts of harassment and threats to them, which constitute relevant material for proceeding against the petitioner. It is further submitted that at the stage of considering a petition for quashing, the Court is only required to examine whether the allegations in the FIR and the material collected 9 during investigation disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, and not to appreciate the evidence or determine its probative value. The questions regarding the petitioner's actual involvement, the evidentiary value of the suicide note, his plea of residing in Uttar Pradesh, and the effect of the time gap between his departure from Bilaspur and the incident are all disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated during trial. Learned State Counsel therefore contended that the charge-sheet discloses sufficient material warranting prosecution of the petitioner and that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ought not to be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution at its threshold. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 13. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if 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, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers 10 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.). 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 15. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the 11 High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self-restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice. 16. Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025) reiterated the aforesaid principles and further held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary worth of the material collected during investigation. The Court reaffirmed the test laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor and observed that criminal proceedings can be quashed at the threshold only when the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains incapable of being refuted by the prosecution, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought 12 not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law. 17. Reverting to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the allegations made in the FIR, the contents of the suicide note and the material collected during investigation, if taken at their face value, do disclose a prima facie case for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the petitioner. The suicide note allegedly recovered during the investigation specifically names the petitioner along with other co-accused and attributes acts of harassment and threats to them. The correctness, authenticity and evidentiary value of the suicide note, as also the extent of the petitioner's involvement, are matters which can only be tested during the course of trial and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 18. The principal contention of the petitioner that he had left Bilaspur in July, 2022 and had been residing and working in the State of Uttar Pradesh much prior to the date of the incident is essentially a defence sought to be projected on the basis of documents relied upon by him. Similarly, the plea that there was no proximity between the alleged acts and the commission of suicide, that he had no connection with the dispute between the deceased and Laxmi Yadav, that he was falsely implicated merely because Laxmi Yadav had once worked as a domestic help at his residence, and that the Investigating Officer wrongly declared him as absconding, all involve disputed questions of 13 fact requiring appreciation of evidence. Such disputed issues cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction. 19. Equally, the contention that the suicide note merely mentions the petitioner's name without attributing any overt act, or that the petitioner has been wrongly identified as "Hardeep Singh", are matters touching upon the appreciation of evidence and the probative value of the prosecution material. Whether the petitioner is the person referred to in the suicide note, whether the allegations contained therein are truthful, and whether the ingredients of abetment are ultimately established are all questions which fall within the domain of the trial Court after recording evidence. 20. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in M. Arjunan (supra), Bhajan Lal (supra) and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (supra) lay down settled principles governing the offence under Section 306 IPC and the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. However, the benefit of those decisions would arise only after the Court concludes that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, fail to disclose the commission of any offence. In the present case, the allegations contained in the FIR, coupled with the suicide note and the material collected during investigation, cannot be said to be so inherently absurd or improbable as to warrant quashing of the proceedings at the threshold. The case, therefore, does not fall within any of the exceptional categories carved out in Bhajan Lal (supra). 14 21. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the documents relied upon by the petitioner regarding his employment, resignation, place of residence and other attendant circumstances constitute matters of defence. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), this Court cannot appreciate such defence material or conduct a mini trial while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 22. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the allegations made in the FIR and the charge-sheet, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any offence or that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. No case is made out warranting interference in exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 23. Consequently, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu