1 CGHC010256942026 2026:CGHC:32164-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1925 of 2026 Nishant Gauraha S/o Shiv Shankar Gauraha Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Nutan Chowk, Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. ABC Nil. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastavas, 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. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.28 18:24:29 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defects as pointed out by the Registry have since been removed. In support thereof, a covering memo dated 27.07.2026 has been filed, which is taken on record. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and kindly be pleased to quash the ‘FIR lodged dated 03.12.2025 (Annexure P/2) by Police Station Sarkanda, at Crime No. 1657 of 2025 registered for commission of offence under Section 69 of BNS’, and also to quash the ‘charge-sheet filed dated 20.01.2026 (Annexure P/3) with respect to petitioner at Case No. 31 of 2026 before learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur for commission of offence committed under Section 69 of BNS and further to set aside the, ‘First order taking cognizance dated 12.02.2026 in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2026 (Annexure P/1) against the petitioner for offence committed under Section 69 of BNS, and same is pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh’. Further to pass any other order as per facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 was married to one Amit Kumar Dwivedi. However, owing to serious matrimonial discord, their relationship had become strained and both of them had decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. 3 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the subsistence of the said matrimonial dispute, respondent No.2 developed acquaintance and friendship with the present petitioner and they remained in regular contact through WhatsApp. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the husband of respondent No.2 came to know about their friendship, he suspected that respondent No. 2 intended to seek divorce because of the petitioner and, under his pressure and coercion, respondent No. 2 lodged a written complaint on 03.12.2025 alleging commission of an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita by the petitioner in respect of an alleged incident dated 15.10.2025. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR bearing Crime No. 1657/2025 came to be registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur. He also submits that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 07.01.2026 in MCRCA No. 5 of 2026. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed the charge- sheet and cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Session and charges have already been framed against the petitioner, whereafter the matter is pending as Sessions Case No. 56 of 2026 before the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CRMP No. 1317 of 2026 and thereafter CRMP No. 1665 of 2026. Both the petitions came to be dismissed with liberty to file a fresh petition and, accordingly, the present petition has been preferred. He further contended that 4 respondent No. 2 and her husband jointly instituted proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 19.01.2026. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 executed a sworn affidavit on 06.04.2026 stating that the FIR had been lodged under pressure exerted by her former husband and that no such incident, as alleged in the FIR, had in fact taken place. It is further submitted that after dissolution of her earlier marriage, respondent No. 2 solemnized marriage with the present petitioner on 15.04.2026 in accordance with law and since then both of them have been residing together as husband and wife. 7. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR is manifestly false, malicious and an outcome of matrimonial discord between respondent No. 2 and her former husband. It is submitted that the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place on 15.10.2025, whereas the FIR was lodged only on 03.12.2025 without any plausible explanation for such delay. According to the petitioner, the subsequent affidavit of respondent No. 2, the decree of divorce by mutual consent and the subsequent marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 constitute unimpeachable circumstances which completely belie the allegations levelled in the FIR and render the continuation of the criminal proceedings wholly unjustified. He further submits that although charges have already been framed, the existence of such subsequent and unimpeachable material does not denude this Court of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) to quash the 5 criminal proceedings where their continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and where interference is necessary to secure the ends of justice. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542, to contend that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is intended to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice; Rajiv Thapar and Others v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, and Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, to submit that criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed where unimpeachable material placed by the accused completely discredits the prosecution case; Suresh Garodia v. State of Assam and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2024, decided on 09.01.2024), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that criminal proceedings which amount to abuse of the process of law are liable to be quashed; and the recent decision in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and Another (SLP (Crl.) No. 4326 of 2018, decided on 26.11.2024), wherein the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings were quashed in the facts of that case. 8. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the undisputed subsequent developments and the material brought on record, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned FIR, the charge- sheet, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including 6 Sessions Case No. 56 of 2026 pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, be quashed. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations made in the FIR, the statements of the victim and other witnesses recorded during investigation, and the material collected by the Investigating Officer prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offence. It is submitted that upon completion of investigation, the police found sufficient material to prosecute the petitioner and accordingly filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court. Thereafter, cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Session and charges have already been framed against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Sessions Trial is now fixed on 27.08.2026 for recording of prosecution evidence. 10. Learned State counsel further submits that the pleas sought to be raised by the petitioner, including the subsequent affidavit of respondent No. 2, the decree of divorce by mutual consent and the subsequent marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, are matters of defence involving disputed questions of fact, which can be examined only during the course of trial upon appreciation of evidence. It is contended that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is required to be exercised sparingly and, as the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories warranting interference, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. 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). 13. 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 8 case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 14. 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. 15. Very recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 9 02.09.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 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. 16. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the FIR contains specific allegations against the petitioner. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected material in support of the prosecution case and, finding sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner, submitted the charge-sheet before the competent Court. Thereafter, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session, where charges have already been framed against the petitioner. 10 17. The principal grounds urged by the petitioner, namely, that the FIR was lodged under pressure exerted by the former husband of respondent No. 2, that respondent No. 2 has subsequently executed an affidavit retracting the allegations, that she obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent and thereafter married the petitioner, are all matters constituting the defence of the petitioner. Whether the subsequent affidavit is voluntary and truthful, and what effect the subsequent divorce and marriage have on the prosecution case, are disputed questions of fact which necessarily require appreciation of evidence. Such issues cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 18. At this stage, this Court cannot enter into an appreciation of the evidentiary value of the defence material relied upon by the petitioner or record findings on its correctness. The exercise sought by the petitioner would amount to conducting a mini trial, which is impermissible while exercising inherent jurisdiction. The defence set up by the petitioner is available to be established before the learned trial Court in accordance with law. 19. 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 present case does not fall within the exceptional category warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS. The material relied upon by the petitioner cannot, at this stage, be held to be of such sterling and impeccable quality as 11 would completely demolish the prosecution case. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is made out. More importantly, the investigation has culminated in filing of the charge-sheet, charges have already been framed against the petitioner, and the Sessions Trial is fixed on 27.08.2026 for recording of prosecution evidence. At this stage, this Court finds no justification to interdict the criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 21. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the Sessions Case on its own merits and in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan