1 CGHC010301412026 2026:CGHC:34396-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2068 of 2026 1 - Devendra Kumar Rathore S/o Ramsharan Rathore Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Sarkho, Ward No. 5, Chouki Naila, P.S Tahsil- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Vivek Kumar Chauhan S/o Mukund Ram Chauhan Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. F-142, S.E.C.L Colony, Pump House Korba, Police Station Korba District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Deepmala Rathore W/o Devendra Kumar Rathore Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Siuad, Police Station- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Purva Jain, Advocate For Respondent No.1-State : Ms.Anusha Naik, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.08.06 18:14:09 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.08.2026 1. Heard Ms.Purva Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms.Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘B.N.S.S.’) with the following relief(s):- “i. Quash the order dated 14/07/2026 passed in Sessions Case No.70/2026, passed by Sessions Judge, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), whereby the Sessions Judge has framed charge against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Section 109(1) and 3 (5) of the BNS, 2023. ii. Quash the order dated 09/06/2026 passed in Sessions Case No.70/2026, passed by Sessions Judge, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), whereby the Sessions Judge has taken cognizance registered the case against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Section 109(1) and 3 (5) of the BNS, 2023. iii. Quash the Charge Sheet bearing No.191/2026 dated 13/04/2026 filed against the petitioners by the Police Station Janjgir (C.G.) for commission of offence which is punishable under section 109 (1) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3 iv. Quash the FIR bearing Crime No.894/2025 dated 29/09/2025 lodged against the petitioners by the Police Station Janjgir (C.G.) for commission of offence which is punishable under section 109 (1) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and the entire proceedings, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 married respondent No.2 and, after marriage, both started residing together at village Sarkho. Initially, their matrimonial life was cordial; however, disputes soon arose regarding their place of residence, lifestyle and domestic issues. According to the petitioners, respondent No.2 frequently quarreled with petitioner No.1, failed to participate in household responsibilities and repeatedly threatened to implicate petitioner No.1 and his family in false criminal cases. On 24.09.2024, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint alleging cruelty and dowry harassment, pursuant to which Crime No.368/2024 was registered at Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa, for offences under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC. Subsequently, this Hon'ble Court, by order dated 17.03.2025, quashed the criminal proceedings against the family members of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 is stated to be only a friend of petitioner No.1 and had merely accompanied him in certain court proceedings. According to the petitioners, respondent No.2 also developed animosity towards petitioner No.2 for that reason. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that several litigations are pending between the parties. Respondent No.2 had also sought transfer of certain proceedings from Katghora to Janjgir by filing Transfer Case 4 No.18/2025, which came to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court on 22.09.2025. Thereafter, on 29.09.2025, respondent No.2 lodged another FIR alleging that the petitioners assaulted her and her father with an iron rod with an intention to commit murder. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No.894/2025 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners were subsequently granted anticipatory bail by this Court. 5. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet on 13.04.2026, and the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa, by order dated 09.06.2026 in Sessions Case No.70/2026, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order taking cognizance, the petitioners filed Cr.M.P. No.1878/2026 before this Hon'ble Court. However, during its pendency, charges were framed on 14.07.2026. Consequently, the petition was withdrawn with liberty to challenge the order framing charge, and the same was permitted by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2026. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 arises out of matrimonial discord, petitioner No.1 being the husband of respondent No.2. She further submits that respondent No.2 had earlier lodged an FIR against petitioner No.1 and his family members for offences under Section 498A of the IPC and other allied provisions. The said FIR was challenged by 5 petitioner No.1 and his family members by filing CRMP No.648/2025, which was partly allowed by this Court insofar as the family members of petitioner No.1 were concerned. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.2 had also filed Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.18/2025 seeking transfer of Criminal Case No.180/2025 from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District Korba to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa. The said transfer petition came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2025. It is further contended that the allegations made in the FIR as well as the charge-sheet are inherently improbable and do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences. According to the learned counsel, the present prosecution has been maliciously instituted at the instance of respondent No.2 with the sole object of harassing the petitioners and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 7. Per contra, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations levelled in the First Information Report, the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation and the material collected by the Investigating Officer prima facie disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners. It is further submitted that, after conducting due investigation, the police found sufficient material to file the charge-sheet and, upon consideration of the entire material available on record, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly taken cognizance and framed charges against the petitioners. 6 She further submits that the scope of interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 at the stage of framing of charge is extremely limited. At this stage, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case exists on the basis of the material collected during investigation and not to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or adjudicate upon the defence of the accused. She also submits that the prosecution case is supported by the medical evidence available on record. The injury report of the father of respondent No.2, which has been annexed by the petitioners themselves at page 40 of the present petition, indicates that he sustained injuries in the alleged incident. The existence of such medical evidence lends prima facie corroboration to the prosecution case and, therefore, it cannot be said that the allegations are inherently improbable or absurd so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 9. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashment of the FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance and the order framing charges. 10. It is well settled that while exercising inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings, the Court is not expected to conduct a 7 meticulous appreciation of the evidence or adjudicate upon the correctness of the allegations. At the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charge, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the material collected during investigation discloses a prima facie case against the accused. The probative value of the evidence and the defence sought to be raised by the accused are matters to be considered only during trial. 11. In the present case, the Investigating Agency, after completing the investigation, has filed the charge-sheet against the petitioners. Upon consideration of the police report and the material accompanying it, the learned Sessions Judge found sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners and accordingly took cognizance and framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 12. The principal contention of the petitioners is that the prosecution has been initiated due to matrimonial discord between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and is actuated by mala fide. Such a plea, however, essentially constitutes a defence which requires appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. Moreover, the record reveals that the father of respondent No.2 is alleged to have sustained injuries in the incident. The injury report, a copy of which has been annexed by the petitioners themselves at page 40 of the petition, prima facie supports the prosecution version regarding the occurrence of the incident. Whether 8 the petitioners are ultimately responsible for the said injuries is a matter which can only be determined upon appreciation of evidence during trial. 13. This Court is of the considered opinion that the material collected during investigation cannot be said to be so deficient or inherently improbable as to justify quashing of the FIR, the charge-sheet, the order taking cognizance or the order framing charge. Since charges have already been framed by the competent Court on the basis of prima facie material available on record, no case is made out for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 14. Accordingly, finding no illegality, perversity or abuse of the process of law in the impugned proceedings, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu