1 2026:CGHC:6943-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 413 of 2026 1 - Kismatunnisha W/o Iqbal Ahmed Aged About 66 Years R/o Darbhanga Chowk, Ward No. 30, Shahdol, District- Shahdol, M.P. 2 - Eklakh Ahmed S/o Iqbal Ahmed Aged About 37 Years R/o Darbhanga Chowk, Ward No. 30, Shahdol, District- Shahdol, M.P. 3 - Afaq Ahmed S/o Iqbal Ahmed Aged About 35 Years R/o Darbhanga Chowk, Ward No. 30, Shahdol, District- Shahdol, M.P. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Katghora, District- Korba, C.G. 2 - Salika Raunak W/o Afaq Ahmed Aged About 24 Years R/o Purani Basti, Radha Sagar Road, Katghora, District- Korba, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 09/02/2026 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.10 11:31:28 +0530 2 petitioners seeking quashment of FIR dated 27.09.2025 registered as Crime No. 342/2025 at Police Station Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, as also all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioners, who are the mother-in-law, brother- in-law and husband of respondent No.2, contend that the impugned FIR has been lodged on the basis of vague, omnibus and malicious allegations, without any specific attribution of role or overt act to the petitioners, and that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted at their face value. It is further asserted that the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intent and amount to an abuse of the process of law, warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court to secure the ends of justice. 2. The petitioners have filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition with the following reliefs:- “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: I. Allow this petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. filed by the petitioners. II. Quash the impugned FIR dated 27.09.2025 bearing Crime No. 342/2025 registered at Police Station, Katghora, District-Korba (C.G.) for the offence U/s 85, 3 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioners. III. Gran any other relief, which may be deemed fit in given facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of petitioners.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned FIR dated 27.09.2025 registered as Crime No. 342/2025 at Police Station Katghora, District Korba, for the offences under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 is a clear abuse of the process of law, inasmuch as the allegations made therein are vague, omnibus and bereft of any specific role or overt act attributable to the petitioners. It is contended that respondent No.2 admittedly resided in the matrimonial home only for a very brief period and voluntarily left the same on her own accord, and that no material has been placed on record to demonstrate any demand of dowry or conduct amounting to “cruelty” as defined under Section 85 of the BNS. Learned counsel would further argue that even if the allegations in the FIR and accompanying statements are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioners, particularly against petitioner No.1, an aged and infirm mother-in-law, and petitioner No.2, the brother-in-law, against whom sweeping and bald allegations have been levelled. It is thus submitted that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be nothing but harassment of the petitioners and would fall squarely within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of 4 Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, justifying interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. 4. Learned State counsel would oppose the petition and submit that the impugned FIR dated 27.09.2025 has been registered on the basis of a written complaint made by respondent No.2 disclosing commission of cognizable offences under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, and that the allegations pertain to cruelty meted out to the complainant in her matrimonial home. It is further submitted that during investigation, statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded and relevant materials were collected, which prima facie substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioners. Learned State counsel would further submit that upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has already been submitted on 12.12.2025 before the competent Court, and therefore the matter is now at a stage where the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations can be tested only during trial. It is contended that the scope of interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is limited, and this Hon’ble Court should not embark upon an appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact at this stage, and accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. In response to the submissions advanced by the learned State counsel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that, in view of the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed on 5 12.12.2025 before the competent Court, the petitioners do not wish to press the present petition any further. Learned counsel, therefore, seeks permission of this Hon’ble Court to withdraw the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy available under law, including the right to challenge the order framing charge, if and when such occasion arises, in accordance with law. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and particularly in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners do not wish to press the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition on merits on account of filing of the charge-sheet and seek permission to withdraw the same with liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law, this Court is not inclined to examine the matter on merits. 7. Accordingly, the present CRMP stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to law to challenge the order framing charge, if so advised and permissible under law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved