1 CGHC010434602025 2026:CGHC:31953-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 537 of 2025 Ejaz Czar S/o Hamid Czar Aged About 51 Years R/o- E-141, Ward No. 28, Behind Shiv Mandir, Near Kailash Kanta Clinic, Village Avanti Vihar, Post- Shankar Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Home/police, Mahanadi, Mantralaya, Police Station- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent of Police Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Station House Officer Police Station- Telibandha Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Tabish Czar W/o Ejaz Czar Aged About 45 Years R/o Umezar, Turabi, Sugra Asgar Manjil, Near Bohra Masjid, Infront Of Hakimi Apartment, Daudpura, Burhanpur (M.P.) Alternate R/o- 3105, 198 Aqurish Newsh, Chenquver, B.C. V-6 Z-2 Ya, Canada --- Respondents CRMP No. 1740 of 2026 1 - Tabish Czar D/o Shri Eliyas Turabi Aged About 46 Years Currently R/o 9603, Manchester Drive, Burnaby B C, V 3 N4 Y 7 (Canada) Permanent Address- Umezar, Turabi Sugra Asgar Manzil, Near Bohra Masjid, Opposite Hakimi Apartment, Dawoodpura Burhanpur (M.P.) 2 - Rohit Bajpai S/o Late Shri Rahul Bajpai Aged About 38 Years R/o Flat No. B 802, Ashoka Royale Vidhan Sabha Road Ashoka Ratan Society, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Jagdeep Singh Sidhu @ Golu S/o Late Shri Mahinder Singh Sidhu Aged About 26 Years (Wrongly Mentioned Surname As Sindhu In Chargesheet And Criminal Proceedings ) R/o Ward No. 32, Mauli Para, Near Gurudwara, Telibandha Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioners Versus ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Ejaz Czar S/o Hamid Hussain Czar Aged About 50 Years R/o Sector- 1, Ward No. 28, Beside Kailashkant Clinic Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner in : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate WPCR No. 537 of 2025 assisted by Mr. Ali Afzal Mirza, Advocate & for respondent No.2 in CRMP No. 1740 of 2026 For Respondent No.4 in : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate WPCR No. 537 of 2025 assisted by Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate & for Petitioners in CRMP No. 1740 of 2026 For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur and 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 27 .0 7 .202 6 1. Since both the petitions arise out of the same matrimonial relationship, business transactions between the parties, and subsequent criminal proceedings, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ali Afzal Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner in WPCR No. 537 of 2025 and for respondent No.2 in CRMP No. 1740 of 2026. Also heard Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel for the petitioners CRMP No. 1740 of 2026 3 and for respondent No.4 in WPCR No. 537 of 2025. 3. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of both these petitions are that the marriage between the petitioner in WPCR No. 537/2025 and respondent No.4 (who is the petitioner in CRMP No. 1740/2026), namely Smt. Tabish Czar and Shri Ejaz Czar, was solemnized on 27.12.2001, and two children were born out of the wedlock. According to the wife, she established a proprietorship concern, Gravity Integrates, in 2009 from her own savings and financial assistance received from her maternal family. It is alleged that at the insistence of her husband, the proprietorship was converted into Gravity Integrates Private Limited, in which both spouses became Directors with equal 50% shareholding. Subsequently, Worldwide Transcripts Private Limited was also incorporated with equal shareholding between them, and later Gravity Integrates Enterprises Inc. was established in Canada to expand the business. The wife alleges that although she was the driving force behind the businesses, the husband neither contributed to their management nor supported the business and instead subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, repeatedly pressurizing her to transfer her shares and control of the companies to him. 4. The wife further alleges that after she shifted to Canada in 2022 to manage the overseas business, the husband assumed complete control over the affairs of the Indian companies, misused the company's funds, withheld her salary, stopped providing financial support, and continued to pressurize her to transfer her shareholding. On her return to India in May, 2023, she claims that she was denied 4 access to her matrimonial home and subjected to further harassment by the husband and his family members, compelling her to lodge a complaint before Mahila Thana, Raipur on 01.07.2023. Thereafter, she resigned from the directorship of both companies on 15.08.2023 while retaining her 50% shareholding and subsequently initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, besides filing proceedings for dissolution of marriage. She further alleges that despite continuing as a shareholder, she was excluded from the affairs of the companies and was denied statutory information. Upon inspection of the records available on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs portal, she allegedly discovered that additional shares had been issued on 31.01.2024 without notice to her, whereby her shareholding stood diluted from 50% to 20%, resulting in registration of a separate criminal case against the husband and his mother alleging offences relating to cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery. 5. On the other hand, the husband lodged FIR No. 374/2024 at Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, alleging that the wife, along with former employees of the companies, including petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in CRMP No. 1740/2026, had conspired to steal confidential electronic data of the companies, gained unauthorized access to digital accounts, transmitted obscene material through the company's electronic platforms, and thereby caused substantial financial loss to the companies. Pursuant to the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 66(C) and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, 5 which is the subject matter of challenge in CRMP No. 1740/2026. Conversely, the husband has challenged the criminal proceedings initiated at the instance of the wife regarding the alleged fraudulent dilution of her shareholding in WPCR No. 537/2025. 6. Thus, considering the fact that both petitions arise out of the same matrimonial discord, disputes concerning ownership, management and control of the companies established during the subsistence of marriage, and the cross-criminal proceedings instituted by the parties against each other, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court, but, as per the report of the Mediation Centre, mediation between the parties could not be succeeded due to demand of Rs.2.25 crores by the husband Ejaz Czar from her wife Tabish Czar which was alleged to have been caused because of her wife and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the petitions are heard finally. 7. Ms. Fouzia Miza, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in WPCR No. 537 of 2025 submits that the dispute projected in FIR No.99/2025 essentially pertains to the internal affairs of two closely held private companies, namely, allotment of additional shares, dilution of shareholding and management of the companies. It is contended that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted on its face value, the allegations disclose a dispute arising out of corporate management and shareholder rights, for which comprehensive remedies are available under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 before the National Company Law Tribunal. It is argued that the 6 criminal prosecution has been initiated only after matrimonial disputes arose between the spouses and, therefore, the criminal law has been invoked to give a criminal colour to a purely civil and commercial dispute. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the allegations do not satisfy the ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 409, 465, 468 and 471 IPC, as there is neither dishonest inducement at the inception nor any entrustment attracting criminal breach of trust. It is thus prayed that the FIR and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Per contra, Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in CRMP No.1740 of 2026 submits that FIR No.374/2024 is nothing but a retaliatory action instituted immediately after the wife initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, sought dissolution of marriage and questioned the dilution of her shareholding. It is submitted that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are merely former employees of the companies and have been falsely implicated to strengthen the prosecution case. It is further argued that the allegations regarding theft of electronic data, unauthorized access to digital platforms and circulation of obscene material are omnibus and unsupported by any forensic or electronic evidence connecting the petitioners with the alleged offences. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the entire dispute arises from matrimonial discord coupled with disputes relating to ownership and management of the companies and continuation of the prosecution 7 would amount to abuse of the process of law. Reliance is placed upon the principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction laid down by the Supreme Court. 9. We have heard learned Senior Advocates appearing for the respective parties at length and perused the entire material available on record. 10. It is not in dispute that the parties are husband and wife and that the companies in question were incorporated during the subsistence of their marriage with equal shareholding between them. It is equally undisputed that serious matrimonial disputes subsequently arose, resulting in multiple litigations including proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, proceedings seeking dissolution of marriage, complaints before the police by both parties and criminal cases arising out of allegations regarding management of the companies. The chronology of events unmistakably demonstrates that each criminal proceeding has been instituted after the relationship between the parties had irretrievably broken down. 11. So far as WPCR No.537 of 2025 is concerned, the allegations essentially relate to issuance of additional shares, dilution of shareholding, appointment of directors and management of the affairs of private companies. Such disputes are fundamentally governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and the remedies available before the National Company Law Tribunal relating to oppression, mismanagement and illegal allotment of shares. The allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, predominantly disclose a shareholder dispute 8 arising from management of closely held companies. Criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to be employed as a weapon for resolving corporate disputes. The Supreme Court has consistently held that where the dispute is predominantly civil or commercial in nature, criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue merely because criminal provisions have been invoked. 12. Similarly, in CRMP No.1740 of 2026, the allegations regarding theft of electronic data, unauthorized access and transmission of obscene material arise in the background of admitted matrimonial discord and disputes concerning control of the companies. Apart from general allegations, the prosecution has not brought on record any cogent electronic or forensic material establishing the complicity of the petitioners. Even the investigation reveals the existence of longstanding matrimonial disputes, shareholder disputes and disagreements regarding management of the companies. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal prosecution would amount to permitting criminal law to be used as a pressure tactic in what is essentially a matrimonial and corporate dispute. 13. The Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, first recognized that criminal proceedings may be quashed where continuation thereof would amount to abuse of the process of Court. The principles were elaborately explained in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Supreme Court illustrated categories in which criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed, particularly where the allegations do not disclose any offence, 9 where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides, or where criminal law has been invoked to settle private or civil disputes. 14. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Supreme Court cautioned that a purely civil dispute should not be permitted to be converted into a criminal prosecution merely to exert pressure upon the opposite party. Likewise, in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168, it was held that for an offence of cheating, dishonest intention must exist from the very inception of the transaction; a mere subsequent breach of contractual or commercial obligations does not constitute the offence of cheating. 15. There can be no quarrel with the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, that the power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. However, the said judgment itself reiterates the principles enunciated in Bhajan Lal and recognizes that where the allegations do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence or where the proceedings are manifestly mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive, interference by the High Court is justified to prevent abuse of the process of law. 16. In the present case, the admitted factual background demonstrates that both criminal prosecutions are a direct consequence of the matrimonial discord and the dispute concerning ownership and control of the companies. The allegations made in both prosecutions are inseparably connected with the matrimonial and corporate disputes 10 already pending between the parties. The criminal proceedings appear to have been initiated as counterblasts to each other after the relationship between the spouses had irretrievably broken down. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and applying the principles laid down in aforesaid judicial precedents, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of both criminal prosecutions would amount to abuse of the process of Court. The disputes between the parties substantially arise from matrimonial discord coupled with disputes relating to shareholding, management and control of private companies, for which appropriate remedies are available under the civil law and the Companies Act. 18. Accordingly, WPCR No.537 of 2025 is allowed. FIR bearing Crime No.99/2025 registered at Police Station Telibandha, Raipur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including Criminal Case No.28029/2025, are hereby quashed. 19. Consequently, CRMP No.1740 of 2026 is also allowed. FIR bearing No.374/2024 registered at Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto and Criminal Case No.2033/2025 pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, together with all consequential proceedings, stand quashed. 20. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra