1 CGHC010262642026 2026:CGHC:30542-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1854 of 2026 Amit Kumar S/o Late Ram Lakhan Prasad Aged About 39 Years R/o Bandh Bahal M.C.L. Colony Q.No. C-48, District Jharsuguda (Orissa) Permanent Address- House No. 400/ab-1, Anita Sadan, Pharmaceutical Colony, Bhuthnath Road, Patna-800026 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S. Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Monika Kumari W/o Amit Kumar Aged About 37 Years Presently R/o Through Father Vijay Kumar, Quarter No. H I G-28, Bajpai Castle, Minocha Colony, Mungeli Road, P.S. Civil Line, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.B. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.07.21 12:11:23 +0530 2 heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate for respondent No.1/ State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “(i) That, the entire records pertaining to the present case may kindly be called for the perusal of this Hon'ble Court. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned Order. (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the final report dated 30.06.2024 and entire criminal proceeding pertaining to criminal case no. 6387/2024 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Bilaspur. (iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs. Thereafter, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties. During the subsistence of the marriage, the parties had mutually decided to shift to a rented accommodation at Raipur for the medical treatment of their minor child and, with the consent of respondent No. 2, the petitioner had also shifted household articles to the said premises. However, immediately before the proposed shifting, respondent No. 2 allegedly refused to relocate 3 under the influence of her parental family, resulting in a matrimonial discord and exchange of arguments between the spouses. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 lodged a report, pursuant to which FIR bearing Crime No. 196/2024 came to be registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC. The petitioner contends that the allegations are false and have been levelled at the instance of respondent No. 2’s family members. The petitioner further submits that despite sincere efforts made by his relatives, including his paternal and maternal uncles from Patna and later his brother and sister-in-law, to amicably resolve the matrimonial dispute, the respondent’s family refused to meet or participate in any reconciliation. It is further submitted that the transfer proceedings between the parties remained pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court till 23.02.2026, during which mediation proceedings were conducted at Cuttack and Bilaspur, causing delay in filing the present petition. Hence, the present petition has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated owing to matrimonial discord. It is contended that the petitioner’s parents have expired and, despite his best efforts to preserve the matrimonial relationship and ensure proper medical treatment and a better future for the minor child, respondent No. 2 chose to reside separately. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not even challenged the interim 4 maintenance order directing payment of Rs.25,000/- under Section 125 Cr.P.C., demonstrating his bona fides. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is willing to resume cohabitation with respondent No. 2 and is even prepared to accommodate her maternal family, besides installing CCTV cameras throughout his residence and sharing access thereto to ensure complete transparency and security. It is argued that the charge-sheet has been filed for offences under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC despite the marriage having been solemnized on 09.03.2015 and the prosecution being initiated nearly nine years thereafter. It is further contended that the prosecution case rests solely on the statements of respondent No. 2 and her parents, without examination of any independent witness, and allegations have also been made regarding the fairness of the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer, in support whereof the petitioner has relied upon RTI proceedings. Learned counsel also submits that though the original written complaint alleged an attempt to murder and domestic violence, no such offences were found made out and the offences ultimately registered do not correspond with the allegations contained therein. It is further submitted that the petitioner had repeatedly approached the authorities regarding the medical treatment of the minor child and had also instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, whereas respondent No. 2 has instead initiated maintenance proceedings 5 and is unwilling to resume matrimonial life. On these grounds, it is prayed that the proceedings/FIR deserve to be quashed and the petition be allowed. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. It is contended that the allegations made in the FIR, coupled with the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. It is further submitted that, upon completion of investigation, the police has filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court and the learned Trial Court, after considering the material available on record, has already framed charges against the petitioner. The said order framing charges has attained finality, as the petitioner has not challenged the same before any superior forum. It is argued that the grounds urged by the petitioner relate to disputed questions of fact, which can only be adjudicated during trial on the basis of evidence, and cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed, 6 charges have already been framed against the petitioner, as such, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the present matter as the FIR as well as the impugned charge-sheet, discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner on which, charges have been framed against the petitioner. Hence, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a logical end. 8. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet