1 CGHC010248852026 2026:CGHC:31652-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1782 of 2026 1 - Ishwarnath Yogi S/o Narsinghnath Yogi Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 06 Gandhi Chowk, Aarang P.S. Aarang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Narsinghnath Yogi S/o Shri Bholanath Yogi Aged About 75 Years R/o Ward No. 06 Gandhi Chowk, Aarang P.S. Aarang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Nirmala Devi W/o Narsinghnath Yogi Aged About 67 Years R/o Ward No. 06 Gandhi Chowk, Aarang P.S. Aarang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Neelam @ Nilu Yogi W/o Tikeshwar Nath Yogi Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 03 Nayapara, Balod, P.S. Balod, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Seetu Yogi W/o Santosh Nath Yogi Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 05 Near Mahamaya Mandir Naya Para P.S. Balod, Tehsil And Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Varsha Goswami @ Pinni W/o Shri Nageshwar Goswami Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 20, Ramsagar Para Village Uparwara, P.S. Rakhi, Tehsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt. Reetu Yogi W/o Rakesh Nath Yogi Aged About 48 Years R/o Old Power House Road, Near Sai Mandir Torwa, P.S. Torwa, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.07.29 11:26:43 +0530 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kabirdham, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Poornima @ Poonam Yogi W/o Ishwarnath Yogi Aged About 37 Years R/o V I P Chowk, Sundernagar, Deendayal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge 24/07/2026 1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners with the following reliefs:- “A. That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of applicant. B. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR No 83/2025 dated 01.03.2025 registered in Police Station Kabirdham District- Kabirdham (C.G.) for alleged commission of offences under section 296, 115(2), 351 (3), 85, 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. C. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the final report in Charge sheet no. 3 207/2025 dated 21.06.2025 under section 296, 115(2), 351 (3), 85, 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 filed before the learned CJM Kawardha District- Kawardha (C.G.) D. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated taking cognizance dated 13/11/2025 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham District- Kabirdham (C.G.) under section 296, 115(2), 351 (3), 85, 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. E. That this Hon'ble court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of Petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 2. This Court vide order dated 10.07.2026 has made efforts for mediation between the parties to amicably settle their disputes and directed the parties to appear before the Mediation Centre on 20.07.2026 and the petitioner No.1 was also directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs before the Mediation Centre of this Court on or before 20.07.2026 and the said amount shall be paid to the respondent No.2 upon her appearance before the Mediation Centre on 20.07.2026. It was also ordered that if the petitioner No.1 fails to deposit the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs before the Mediation Centre of this Court by 20.07.2026, the interim order of stay of the proceedings before the learned trial Court shall stands vacated and the petition shall stands dismissed without reference to the bench and the trial Court shall proceed with the trial. From the report of Mediation Center dated 21.07.2026, it transpires that the petitioner No.1 has not deposited the said sum of Rs. 2 lakhs 4 in compliance of the order dated 10.07.2026 and therefore, the mediation could not be initiated. 3. On being asked from the learned counsel for the petitioners about occupation of petitioner No.1, he would submit that the petitioner No.1 is a bank employee, but he is not willing to deposit the said sum of Rs. 2 lakhs for mediation and therefore, he has not deposited the same before the Mediation Centre of this Court. Though there is an order that if the petitioner No.1 fails to deposit the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, the petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to the Bench, however, since the date has been fixed for hearing of the case along with the mediation report i.e. on 24.07.2026, the case has been listed for further orders. Since this court has already make efforts for mediation between the parties, but the petitioner No.1 did not deposited the amount ordered by this Court with the Mediation Centre, the mediation could not be started and therefore, the matter has been listed before this Court. 4. Since there is already a peremptory order for dismissal of this petition without reference to the Bench in non-compliance of the order dated 10.07.2026, the petition itself is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Even otherwise, from perusal of the FIR and the statements of the witnesses, there exists a prima facie case regarding the allegation of harassment to the complainant for demand of dowry, abusing her by filthy language, assault made upon the complainant, and therefore, we do not find any reason to quash the entire criminal proceedings. The law is well settled in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. 5 State of Maharashtra, 2021 (19) SCC 401 and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), that the proceedings cannot be quashed when there are prima facie sufficient evidence is available with the charge sheet to proceed with the trial and there is sufficient prima facie material available in the charge sheet to proceed with the trial. 5. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 6. The interim order dated 10.07.2026 stands vacated. 7. A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Judge ved