1 2026:CGHC:4725 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1950 of 2023 1 - Ajay Krishna Sharma S/o Late Shri Banshilal Sharma, Aged About 41 Years R/o. Abhishek Bihar Colony, House No. 100, Phase No. 1, Uslapur, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Uma Devi, Wd/o Late Shri Banshilal Sharma, Aged About 65 Years R/o. Abhishek Bihar Colony, House No. 100, Phase No. 1, Uslapur Police Station- Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Vijay Krishna Sharma, S/o Late Shri Banshilal Sharma, Aged About 37 Years R/o. Abhishek Bihar Colony, House No. 182, Phase No. 2, Uslapur, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Neha Sharma, W/o Vijay Krishna Sharma, Aged About 29 Years R/o. Abhishek Bihar Colony, House No. 182, Phase No. 2, Uslapur, Police Station - Civil Lines, Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh The The S.H.O., Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Varsha Sharma W/o Ajay Krishna Sharma, Aged About 32 Years R/o Radhakrishna Ward No. 20, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, CG. (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title Taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.01.28 18:43:43 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Chandraditya Pandey, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28/01/2026 1 Heard Mr. Akash Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Chandraditya Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2 By this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.), the petitioner seeks quashing of the Criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in FIR bearing No. 887/2021 registered at Police Station Kawardha (Kabirdham) District Kabirdham, for commission of o@ence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 498A read with 34 of IPC, the charge sheet bearing No. 912/2021 Aled on the basis of said FIR and the consequent Criminal Case No. 3443/2021 parties being State of CG. v. Ajay Krishna Sharma and others, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham. 3 The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that respondent No. 2/complainant was married to the petitioner No. 1 on 29.06.2020. The respondent No. 2/complainant lodged a written complaint on 26.07.2021 at Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, inter alia on the ground that she was subjected to cruelty with demand of dowry by her husband and mother-in-law for one month just after the marriage 3 thereafter, on pretext of Teej festival, she was left at her parent’s house for 3 months. Later on, she was brought back to her matrimonial house however, after some days the petitioner No. 1/husband of the respondent No. 2 complainant demanded Rs.2 lakhs from elder brother of respondent No. 2 and when the demand was not fulAlled she was abused and assaulted. Thereafter, father of respondent No. 2 got registered one land admeasuring 5 decimals in the name of respondent No.2/complainant. Further the petitioner No. 1 abused the respondent No. 2/complainant and her mother-in-law threatened her for life. It was also alleged that brother-in-law/petitioner No. 3 and sister-in-law/ petitioner No. 4 troubled her. On 25.07.2021, she was driven away out of her matrimonial house after abusing her 4 Based on the written complaint of respondent No.2/complainant, an FIR bearing No. 887/2021 was registered at Police Station, Kawardha on 14.11.2021 against the petitioners. The wheels of investigation began to run. The Police conducted the investigation, recorded the statement of the witnesses, arrested the accused persons and after completion the investigation, a charge sheet bearing No. 912/2021 dated 21.12.2021 was Aled before the jurisdictional Magistrate. After being arrested in the aforesaid o@ence the petitioners secured bail from the learned Court below. Thereafter the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the o@ence and proceeded to try the o@enders. 5 Mr. Akash Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No. 1/complainant and petitioner No. I were blessed with a baby boy on 27.01.2023 namely Avyukt Sharma and this fact has been admitted by respondent No.2/complainant in para 2 of the reply dated 17.07.2023 to the notice sent by the petitioner No. 1 dated 11.07.2023. 4 This fact makes it vivid that the parties cohabited and lived together as husband and wife. It has been further admitted by her in paragraph 3 that she and petitioner No. 1 lived in Rourkela, Odisha since December 2021 and after birth of Avyukt Sharma, she again went to Rourkela in March 2023. After petitioner No. 1 was transferred to Amlai, Anuppur respondent No 2/complainant went to Amlai, Anuppur, (MP) in June 2023 and lastly on 11.07.2023, she was left at Kawardha, which means that the parties resided together quite peacefully for a long time and the entire allegations are false and baseless and as such, this petition deserves to be allowed. From a bare reading of the written complaint/FIR lodged by respondent No. 2/complainant it appears that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. A small matrimonial skirmishes have been given the hue of criminal o@ence which is a clear abuse of process of law. The petitioner No. 3 and 4 respectively are brother in law and sister in law of the complainant/respondent No. 2 who live separately however they also have been implicated in the matter along with husband and mother in law. There is delay of about 4 months in registration of FIR as apparently the written complaint was lodged by the complainant/ respondent No. 2 on 26.07 2021 however the FIR has been registered only on 14.11.2021. hat, various rounds of counseling was conducted in the matter. Vide counseling report dated 26.08 2021 it is apparent that there was a dispute between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 regarding account of Rs. 1 lakh. When the counseling rounds failed, the respondent No.1 proceeded to lodge the FIR against the petitioners. Even after the lodging of the FIR by respondent No. 2/complainant against the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 got the respondent No. 2 treated from the doctor and even she lived with him at her matrimonial house. The petitioner No. 3 and 4 live separately from petitioner No. I and 5 respondent No 2/complainant even though they have been made accused in the present case which amounts to abuse of process of law. It is settled law that the relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless speciAc instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. The respondent No.2/ complainant and the petitioner No.1 cohabited even after the lodging of the FIR and they were blessed with a baby boy namely Avyukt Sharma on 27.01 2023 and apparently the FIR was lodged. on 14.11.2021 which shows that the parties were living happily as a married couple 6 In support of his contentions, he relies on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar a Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others {2022 Live Law (SC) 141}, Rajesh Sharma and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr {(2018) 10 SCC 472}, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr, {(2014) 8 SCC 273}, Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr; {(2010) 7 SCC 667}, Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of UP & Anr, {(2012) 10 SCC 741} and K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, {(2018) 14 SCC 452}. 7 On the other hand, Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that on the basis of information given by the complainant i.e. respondent No. 2, the FIR was lodged and prima facie o@ence under Sections 294, 323, 506, 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC have been probed and after due investigation, the Anal report / charge-sheet has been submitted before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, against the petitioners. The instant petition Aled by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed at the threshold because the case is pending before Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kawardha, therefore, the 6 petitioners will have ample opportunity to raise all their defence before the learned trial Court but instead of that the petitioners have straightway Aled the instant petition before this Hon'ble Court for quashing of FIR and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In fact the petition does not disclose any cause of action against the State. No omission or inaction has been attributed to the State agencies in discharge of their statutory duties. Mr. Sahu submits that, whatever the petitioners have stated in their defence in this petition, they may put all that materials before the Court below and contest the case. At this initial stage, this petition is premature. The respondent No. 1 had no option but to lodge a FIR against the culprit so the State has acted as per law, thus, the said FIR is not false or lodged with a motive to harass the petitioners. A bare perusal of the entire charge sheet would show that suKcient material is available against the petitioners in the charge sheet. As regards the quashing of charge sheet is concerned, it is submitted that, in the complaint, on the basis of which the FIR has been lodged contains and shows prima facie involvement of the petitioners. Hence, it could not be said to be a At case for quashing of Charge sheet. Furthermore, since after registration of FIR, the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been Aled containing suKcient materials against the petitioners. Therefore, at present, it could not be said to be a At case for quashing of Charge sheet 8 Mr. Chandraditya Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/ complainant concurs with the submissions advanced by the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and prays for dismissal of this petition. 7 9 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10 From perusal of the materials available on record, it prima facie appears that the petitioners have treated the respondent No. 2/complainant with cruelty and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present is a case where petty household scuLe has been given a colour of criminal o@ence, is noticed to be rejected. Further, from perusal of the communication dated 27.01.2026 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kawardha, it transpires that the matter was Axed for argument before framing of charge on 02.01.2026 but neither the petitioners No. 1 and 2 nor their counsel appeared on the date Axed and as such, warrant of arrests have been issued against them. Till date, charges have not been framed against the petitioners and the matter is Axed for appearance of the petitioner No. 1 and 2 on 20.03.2026. It appears that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are trying to anyhow avoid the criminal proceedings. 11 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 o@ences. 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 o@ence 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 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 8 12 In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others {2021 SCC OnLine SC 315}, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/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 emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR 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 FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable o@ence and is not required to consider the case on merits. 13 From perusal of the materials available on record, prima facie, it cannot be held that no cognizable o@ence is made out against the petitioners and as such, this Court is of the view that this is not a At case where this Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash the FIR including the entire criminal proceedings. 14 As such, this petition is dismissed. However, since the matter is pending consideration before the trial Court concerned, the petitioner(s) are at liberty to take all the pleas and raise the grounds that may be available to them, before the learned trial Court, at an appropriate stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Brijmohan / Amit