1 CGHC010286572026 2026:CGHC:32166-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1922 of 2026 1. Rahul Khoobchandani S/o Shri Prakash Khoobchandani Aged About 31 Years R/o Manish Traders Tilda Camp Distt. Raipur Teh. Tilda Distt. Raipur Cg, Chhattisgarh 2. Prakash Khoobchandani S/o Late Shri Motumal Aged About 57 Years R/o Manish Traders Tilda Camp Distt. Raipur Teh. Tilda Distt. Raipur Cg 3. Mohit Khoobchandani S/o Shri Prakash Khoobchandani Aged About 33 Years R/o Manish Traders Tilda Camp Distt. Raipur Teh. Tilda Distt. Raipur Cg 4. Anju Khoobchandani W/o Shri Prakash Khoobchandani Aged About 53 Years R/o Manish Traders Tilda Camp Distt. Raipur Teh. Tilda Distt. Raipur Cg 5. Yashika Khoobchandani @ Antim Kotwani W/o Mohit Khoobchandani Aged About 34 Years R/o Manish Traders Tilda Camp Distt. Raipur Teh. Tilda Distt. Raipur Cg ... Applicant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahila Thana Distr. Raipur Cg 2. Smt. Chandni Khoobchandani W/o Shri Rahul Khoobchandani Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Dr. Bagdi Nursing Home Natthani Bada Budhapara P/s City Kotwali Distt. Raipur C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.28 18:24:29 +0530 2 For Applicants : Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, 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 28.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. Although the present petition was listed today for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it was taken up for final hearing and is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. The present petition has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application & quash the FIR dated 10.05.2023 in Crime No. 66 of 2023, under Section 498A/34 of the IPC, and charge-sheet dated 15.06.2023 under Section 498A/34, 377, 376, 511 of the IPC at Police Station Mahila Thana, Distt. Raipur, C.G., and cognizance taken and memo of charge in ST No. 219 of 2023 by the Additional Session Judge FTC, Distt. Raipur C.G., under Section 498A/34, 377, 376, 511 by dated 08.04.2024 against the present applicants, in 3 the interest of justice, any other order that may be deemed fit and just on the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the marriage between applicant No. 1 and the respondent No. 2/complainant was was solemnized on 01.09.2022 at Sindhi Gurudwara, Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur (C.G.), according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. He further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the marriage between applicant No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 was the second marriage for both parties. Their respective first marriages had already been dissolved by way of customary divorce, as acknowledged by both sides. Since both parties belong to the same community, their respective families consented to the marriage, which was thereafter solemnized with the free consent of both parties. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that according to the allegations made by the respondent No. 2, after some time of the marriage, the applicant No. 1 and his family members allegedly started harassing her for dowry, compelled her to perform all household work after removing the domestic help, and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. He also submitted that the respondent No. 2 has alleged that the applicant No. 1 was unable to maintain normal physical relations and allegedly compelled her to engage in unnatural sexual acts. It is alleged that whenever she refused, she was abused and assaulted. She further alleged that when she complained about the 4 conduct of the applicant No. 1 to his family members, they supported him and instead blamed her. The respondent No. 2 has further alleged that the applicant No. 1 and his family members deprived her of food, clothing, and other basic necessities, restricted her freedom, and constantly blamed her for various household issues. 6. It is further stated by the learned counsel, appearing for the applicants that the respondent No. 2 has alleged that the applicant No.1 and his family members repeatedly pressurized her to conceive a male child and made objectionable and shocking remarks to the effect that it would not matter whether the child was conceived through the husband, the father-in-law, the brother-in-law, or any other family member, so long as a male child was born, allegedly because the elder son already had two daughters. According to the respondent No. 2, such conduct caused her severe mental trauma. He also stated that as per the allegations of the respondent No. 2, she was repeatedly forced to leave the matrimonial home and, on several occasions, was not even permitted to stay there overnight. Ultimately, she left the matrimonial home and lodged a complaint before the Mahila Police Station, Raipur, alleging demand of dowry and harassment by the applicant No. 1 and his family members. It is submitted that, on the basis of the written complaint lodged by the respondent No. 2, the police registered an offence under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed on 15.06.2023, wherein offences under Sections 377, 376, and 511 of the IPC were also added against the applicants. 5 7. Learned counsel for the applicants further contended that the learned trial Court took cognizance of the offences and, thereafter, framed charges against the applicants. Charges under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC were framed against all the applicants; a charge under Section 377 of the IPC was framed against the applicant No. 1; charges under Sections 376 and 511 of the IPC were framed against the father-in-law and mother-in-law; and charges under Section 498-A of the IPC were framed against the brother-in-law and sister-in-law. He also contended that the allegations made by the respondent No. 2 are false, vague, and omnibus in nature, having been levelled only with a view to harass the applicants and implicate the entire family without any specific role being attributed to them. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant No. 1 is already paying maintenance to the respondent No. 2 and that proceedings relating to dissolution of marriage are presently pending before the competent Family Court at Raipur. He further submits that the allegations regarding demand of dowry against the family members are entirely general and omnibus in nature. No specific date, time, or incident has been mentioned as to when such demand was allegedly made. Even during her statement before the learned trial Court, the respondent No. 2 did not attribute any specific overt act to the family members. The allegation against the applicant No. 1 regarding commission of unnatural sexual acts is not supported by the medical evidence. The respondent No. 2 was medically examined by Dr. Veena Patel (PW-2), Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kalibadi, who did 6 not find any external or internal injuries or any medical signs suggestive of unnatural sexual intercourse. 9. Learned counsel for the applicants also contended that no specific allegation or individual incident has been attributed to the brother-in-law and sister-in-law in relation to the alleged demand of dowry, and they have been implicated only on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations. He further submitted that the allegations made by the respondent No. 2 are inherently contradictory. On one hand, she alleges that the applicant No. 1 was incapable of maintaining physical relations, while on the other hand, she alleges that he repeatedly forced her to engage in unnatural sexual intercourse. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, these inconsistent allegations themselves cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. 10. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations levelled against the father-in-law and mother-in-law are wholly improbable and inherently unbelievable. The father-in-law is about 60 years of age and the mother-in-law is about 55 years of age. Despite this, the respondent No. 2 has alleged that the mother-in-law restrained her while permitting the father-in-law to commit sexual intercourse with her in the presence of other family members. It is submitted that such allegations are inherently absurd, improbable, and have been made only to falsely implicate the applicants. 11. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations levelled by respondent No. 2 7 in the FIR are specific and disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the applicants. It is submitted that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, collected the relevant material and, upon finding sufficient prima facie evidence, filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court, after considering the material collected during investigation, has rightly taken cognizance of the offences and framed charges against the applicants. Learned State counsel would further submit that the grounds urged by the applicants pertain to disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated upon appreciation of evidence during trial and, therefore, no case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is made out. 12. Learned State counsel further submits that the trial is already in progress. Out of the total nine prosecution witnesses, the evidence of the victim as well as Dr. Veena Patel (PW-2), Medical Officer, has already been recorded. It is further submitted that despite repeated summons, S.I. Baby Nanda, Mahila Thana, Raipur, is not appearing before the learned trial Court for recording of her evidence. It is also submitted that the examination-in-chief of Anil Krishnani has already been completed, however, he is not appearing before the learned trial Court for his cross-examination, resulting in unnecessary delay in conclusion of the trial. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 8 material available on record. 14. 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 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS). 15. 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 9 cannot be quashed. 16. 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 BNSS). The Hon’ble 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 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. 17. Very recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid 10 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 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. 18. In the present case, the respondent No. 2 has made specific allegations in the FIR that soon after the marriage, the applicant No. 1 and his family members subjected her to cruelty on account of demand of dowry, compelled her to perform all household work, deprived her of basic necessities and continuously harassed her. She has further alleged that the applicant No. 1 repeatedly subjected her to unnatural sexual acts against her will and assaulted her whenever she resisted. Serious allegations have also been levelled against the other applicants regarding their active participation in the acts of cruelty and harassment and against the father-in-law and mother-in-law regarding the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 511 of the 11 IPC. During investigation, the statements of the respondent No. 2 and other witnesses were recorded and, upon consideration of the entire material collected during investigation, the Investigating Officer found sufficient material to prosecute the applicants and accordingly filed the charge-sheet. The learned trial Court, after considering the police report and the accompanying material, has taken cognizance and framed charges against the applicants. Significantly, the trial has already commenced and the evidence of the victim as well as the Medical Officer has already been recorded. 19. The principal submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants are that the allegations are omnibus in nature; that no specific role has been assigned to the family members; that the medical evidence does not support the allegation under Section 377 of the IPC; that the allegations are inherently contradictory; and that the prosecution has been initiated only to harass the applicants. In the considered opinion of this Court, all these submissions constitute the defence of the applicants and necessarily require appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 20. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or record findings regarding the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made by respondent No. 2. Whether the allegations are ultimately established, whether there are contradictions in the prosecution evidence, and what effect the medical 12 evidence may have on the prosecution case are all matters to be examined by the learned trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties. The defence sought to be projected by the applicants cannot constitute a valid ground for quashing the criminal proceedings at this stage. 21. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS. The submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants are matters of defence which are required to be established before the learned trial Court during the course of trial. 22. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 23. However, considering the submission made by the learned State counsel that out of the total nine prosecution witnesses, the evidence of the victim and Dr. Veena Patel has already been recorded, but S.I. Baby Nanda, Mahila Thana, Raipur, is repeatedly not appearing before the learned trial Court for recording of her evidence, and that although the examination-in-chief of Anil Krishnani has already been completed, he 13 is not appearing for his cross-examination, resulting in avoidable delay in conclusion of the trial, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following directions in the interest of expeditious disposal of the Sessions Trial. 24. Accordingly, the Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, is directed to ensure the appearance of S.I. Baby Nanda before the learned trial Court on the next date fixed and to take all necessary steps for securing the presence of Anil Krishnani for completion of his cross- examination so that the trial may proceed expeditiously. 25. Learned State counsel is directed to forthwith forward a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, for necessary compliance. 26. The Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, is directed to ensure strict compliance with the aforesaid directions and to submit a compliance report before this Court within one week. The said compliance report shall be forwarded through the Registrar General of this Court and shall be placed before this Court in Chamber. 27. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and shall not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the Sessions Trial on its own merits and strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan