1 CGHC010284892026 2026:CGHC:32171-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1930 of 2026 Bhupendra Singh Parihar S/o Late Indrajeet Singh Aged About 56 Years R/o Kanya Parisar Road, Bishunpur, Ambikapur, P/S Ambikapur District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Home Department Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt- Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Sitapur District- Sarguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 3 - Santosh Gupta S/o Harilal Gupta Aged About 54 Years R/o Kesla Road Sitapur P/ S Sitapur District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State/ Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. 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. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner seeking ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 following reliefs : “a) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR no. 262/2026 as well as further investigation registered at the police station of Sitapur District Sarguja (C.G.), under Section 108 and 3(5) of BNS. b) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as the Hon’ble Court may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case is that complainant Santosh Gupta gave oral inquest information that Dinesh Gupta is his cousin. He used to work as a manager in the cooperative society of village Kerju and was worried about his work, on 26.12.2025 at around 5.00 pm, Dinesh Gupta's brother Ramesh called and informed that Dinesh Gupta has committed suicide by hanging himself in his house, he informed that when he came home he saw that Dinesh Gupta had been taken down from the noose and that he had died, but they did not take him to the hospital, Dinesh Gupta used to be very worried about his work, due to which a case has been registered on the report that he has committed suicide by hanging and the post-mortem examination has been taken up for proceedings. 4. On the basis of the statement of the deceased wife namely Mrs. Sunita Gupta that the deceased was misappropriated by Bhupendra Singh Parihar, the then Branch Manager of the District Cooperative Central Bank, Petla branch, by keeping the deceased Dinesh Gupta in front and taking money of Rs. 52,00,000/-, which 3 was not being returned, due to which the deceased Dinesh Gupta was very upset, and when Bhupendra Singh Parihar asked for the money, he was threatened by claiming to be the head of the Bank and was scolded and threatened to be fired from the job, due to which Dinesh Gupta was mentally disturbed, by misappropriating the government funds by Bhupendra Singh Parihar and by misleading the deceased Dinesh Gupta, the money was embezzled, and the entire responsibility was put on the deceased Dinesh Gupta due to which deceased Dinesh Gupta got harassed and committed suicide by hanging himself on the night of 25.12.2025, the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there is no nexus between the conduct of the petitioner with that of suicide committed by the deceased Dinesh Gupta and the petitioner has been falsely implicated and is innocent. He further argued that the impugned FIR is arbitrary, illegal, and amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law, as the alleged incident of suicide occurred on 25.12.2025, whereas the FIR came to be registered only on 07.07.2026, after an unexplained delay of more than seven months. The prosecution has failed to furnish any plausible explanation for such an extraordinary delay, thereby casting serious doubt on the genuineness of the allegations. Further, the deceased did not leave behind any suicide note or any contemporaneous documentary, electronic, or oral evidence 4 indicating that the petitioner had instigated, intentionally aided, or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. He submitted that the impugned FIR does not disclose any specific overt act, instigation, or intentional aid attributable to the petitioner so as to satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is further submitted that the petitioner was serving as the Branch Manager of Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank and his duties were confined only to verifying the genuineness of cheques presented by the concerned Seva Sahakari Samiti in accordance with the prescribed banking procedure. The deceased was employed as the Committee Manager of Seva Sahakari Samiti, a separate and independent cooperative institution, and was responsible for issuing cheques in favour of eligible farmers against sanctioned agricultural loans. The petitioner neither participated in the sanction of loans nor had any role in the issuance of cheques by the Society. He had no supervisory, disciplinary, administrative, or employer-employee relationship with the deceased and possessed no authority to appoint, suspend, dismiss, or otherwise interfere with the service conditions of the deceased. He contended that the petitioner had already been transferred from Jila Sahakari Bank, Branch Petla, to Branch Kusmi on 02.07.2025, nearly six months prior to the alleged incident, and thereafter had no official dealings or interaction with the deceased. In these circumstances, there existed no proximate or 5 live link between the petitioner and the unfortunate incident of suicide. It is, therefore, submitted that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is wholly unsustainable in law. He further contended that the prosecution has failed to produce any material demonstrating the existence of mens rea or any direct and proximate act on the part of the petitioner that could have compelled or incited the deceased to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment, unsupported by cogent material, are insufficient to attract the offence of abetment of suicide. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626, wherein it has been held that conviction for the offence of abetment of suicide requires a clear mens rea and an active or direct act intended to drive the deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of any such material, the essential ingredients of Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are conspicuously absent, and the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed as being a misuse of the criminal process and an abuse of the process of the Court. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the petition and submitted that the impugned FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and that the allegations made therein, if taken at their face value, prima facie constitute the offence punishable 6 under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is submitted that the deceased's wife has specifically alleged that the petitioner, while posted as the Branch Manager of the District Cooperative Central Bank, Petla Branch, had misappropriated government funds by using the deceased as an intermediary, retained an amount of Rs. 52,00,000/-, and thereafter threatened and harassed the deceased when he demanded the return of the said amount. It is further alleged that the petitioner shifted the entire responsibility of the alleged embezzlement upon the deceased, thereby subjecting him to continuous mental harassment, which ultimately drove him to commit suicide. It is contended that the allegations disclose a prima facie nexus between the conduct attributed to the petitioner and the suicide committed by the deceased, and therefore warrant a thorough investigation and trial. Learned State counsel further submitted that the grounds urged by the petitioner, including the delay in lodging the FIR, absence of a suicide note, the petitioner's transfer prior to the incident, and the nature of his official duties, are all matters of defence which involve disputed questions of fact and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, while exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. It is contended that the credibility, truthfulness, and evidentiary value of the allegations can only be tested during the course of investigation and trial. It is well settled that, at the stage of considering a petition for 7 quashing, the Court is only required to examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and not whether the allegations are likely to result in conviction. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned FIR cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of law at this preliminary stage. Since the investigation is in progress and the allegations require thorough examination on the basis of the evidence to be collected, no case is made out for exercise of the inherent powers of this Court to quash the FIR. The petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are not made out, inasmuch as there is no suicide note, no contemporaneous complaint by the deceased, and no material indicating any direct act of instigation or intentional aid on the part of the petitioner. It has also been contended that the petitioner had already been transferred from Branch Petla to Branch Kusmi nearly six months prior to the incident and, therefore, there existed no proximate link between the petitioner and the alleged commission of suicide. The delay in lodging the FIR has also been highlighted to contend that the prosecution case is doubtful. 8 9. On the other hand, the allegations contained in the impugned FIR disclose that the petitioner, while posted as the Branch Manager of the District Cooperative Central Bank, Petla Branch, allegedly misappropriated government funds by using the deceased as an intermediary, retained an amount of Rs.52,00,000/-, and thereafter subjected the deceased to threats and harassment when the amount was demanded. It is further alleged that the entire responsibility of the alleged embezzlement was shifted upon the deceased, causing severe mental distress, which ultimately led him to commit suicide. At this stage, the Court is required to examine only whether the allegations contained in the FIR, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The correctness, truthfulness, and evidentiary value of the allegations are matters to be examined during investigation and, if necessary, at trial. 10. The scope of interference under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is well settled. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court illustratively enumerated the categories of cases wherein the extraordinary power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised. The Court simultaneously cautioned that such power is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases. The present case does not fall within any of the categories formulated in Bhajan Lal (supra) warranting interference. 9 11. Likewise, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that while exercising jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the correctness of the allegations. If the allegations in the First Information Report, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court should ordinarily refrain from stalling the prosecution. The Court further held that disputed questions of fact and the defence of the accused are matters to be considered during trial and not at the stage of quashing. 12. 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 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 10 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. 13. In view of the aforesaid settled principles and considering the allegations contained in the FIR and the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that it cannot be said, at this stage, that the impugned FIR does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence or that the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides so as to warrant interference in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The investigation must be permitted to proceed in accordance with law so that the truth of the allegations may be ascertained on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. 14. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the impugned FIR or the consequential proceedings. The petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case, which shall be considered independently by the Investigating Agency and the competent Court in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra