1 CGHC010326622026 2026:CGHC:38274-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2269 of 2026 1. Jitendra Tamrakar (In Person) S/o Bhagwat Prasad Tamrakar Aged About 36 Years (Devangan Wrongly Mentioned), R/o Of Ward No. 13, Tamer Para, Dhamdha, P. S. Dhamdha, District Durg C. G. 2. Bhagwat Prasad Tamrakar S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal Tamrakar Aged About 70 Years R/o Of Ward No. 13, Tamer Para, Dhamdha, P. S. Dhamdha, District Durg C. G. --)not Mentioned) 3. Asha Tamrakar W/o Bhagwat Tamrakar Aged About 67 Years (Not Mentioned) --R/o Of Ward No. 13, Tamer Para, Dhamdha, P. S. Dhamdha, District Durg C. G. 4. Raghvendra Tamrakar S/o Bhagwat Tamrakar Aged About 35 Years R/o Of Ward No. 13, Tamer Para, Dhamdha, P. S. Dhamdha, District Durg C. G. --(Not Mentioned) 5. Sunidhi Tamrakar W/o Raghvendra Tamrakar Aged About 32 Years R/o Of Ward No. 13, Tamer Para, Dhamdha, P. S. Dhamdha, District Durg C. G. --(Not Mentioned) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Mahila Thana, Bhilai District Durg C. G. 2. Apurva Mishra, W/o Jitendra, Tamarkar Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Chandkhuri, Sai, Nagar Durg District Durg C. G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.08.31 17:34:44 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Tamrakar, Petitioner No. 1 in person. For Respondent/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Tamrakar, petitioner No. 1 in person. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “In view of the facts and grounds stated herein above it is most respectfully prayed that Honorable Court may graciously be pleased to allow the petition and quash the FIR No. 19/2021 dated 04.02.2021 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Dist. Durg (C.G.) for offence of 498A and 34 of IPC filed against the petitioners and also the order dated 23.10.2021 wherein the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) has taken cognizance and framed charges dated 25.12.2025 of matter under 498A and 34 of IPC as Criminal Case No. RCC/9123/2021 in the interest of justice. Pass any other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the acts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Petitioner No. 1, appearing in person, respectfully submits that the 3 complainant came in contact with him and an alleged relationship developed between them. However, there was no valid solemnization of marriage between the parties in accordance with any customary marriage ceremony, including Homa or Saptapadi. The parties never resided together as husband and wife in a shared household and never represented themselves before society as a married couple. At the relevant time, Petitioner No. 1 was pursuing his Post-Graduation at District Hospital, Durg and was residing separately. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 were also residing separately and had no interference whatsoever in the personal relationship between Petitioner No. 1 and the complainant. He further submits that a male child was born on 12.01.2019 and is presently residing with him. Thereafter, the parents of the complainant started making coercive demands from Petitioner No. 1, and on non-fulfilment of such demands, threats of lodging false criminal complaints were repeatedly extended. The complainant had earlier approached Mahila Thana on 19.03.2019 and 28.11.2019, but neither of those complaints contained any allegation relating to dowry or cruelty under Section 498-A IPC. Those proceedings were subsequently withdrawn. 4. Petitioner No. 1 further contended that on 17.10.2020 the complainant again lodged allegations against petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, who were admittedly residing separately at Dhamdha, approximately 35 kilometres away from Durg. The allegations against them were vague, general and omnibus in nature. On 24.12.2020, the complainant submitted an affidavit before Mahila Thana and the proceedings were closed. Thereafter, there was admittedly no resumption of cohabitation between petitioner No. 1 and the complainant and no fresh incident of cruelty was 4 alleged. Despite the earlier proceedings having been closed, the complainant again submitted substantially the same allegations before Mahila Thana on 11.01.2021. Even before registration of the FIR, the police issued notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking documentary proof regarding the alleged marriage. No such proof was produced, yet the FIR was ultimately registered on 04.02.2021. Petitioner No. 1 submits that the prosecution has, therefore, proceeded without any clear or consistent foundation establishing the alleged matrimonial relationship. He would submit that he was granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court, while petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 were granted bail by the learned Sessions Court, Durg. The charge-sheet was filed after about nine months of registration of the FIR, and despite the case continuing for more than five years, no specific and credible material has emerged against the petitioners. Charges under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC were framed only on 15.12.2025. 5. Petitioner No. 1 further stated that he and the other petitioners had already challenged the proceedings before the learned trial Court and thereafter before the learned Sessions Court. The earlier challenge to the framing of charges was also unsuccessful. An earlier petition before this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS) was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition after curing defects and inadvertent omissions. The present petition has accordingly been filed after curing those defects. He also stated that the complainant has taken materially inconsistent positions regarding her marital status before different authorities. Her Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and other documents continue to reflect her status as “unmarried”. Even in January 2025, while 5 opening a bank account with District Cooperative Central Bank, Durg, she declared herself to be unmarried. Petitioner No. 1 submits that similar declaration was made by her in connection with her employment and salary account. Further, in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the complainant herself stated that she did not ordinarily represent herself socially as a married woman, including by not wearing sindoor or mangalsutra. These circumstances, taken cumulatively, seriously undermine the allegation that the parties were living in a subsisting matrimonial relationship. 6. Petitioner No. 1 also submits that before the learned SDM, Durg, the complainant alleged that petitioner No. 1 had kidnapped his own son on 16.10.2020 from Dhamdha, pursuant to which proceedings under Sections 97 and 98 Cr.P.C. were initiated and search warrants were issued. No material supporting the allegation was found and those proceedings were subsequently withdrawn. Thereafter, in the complaint dated 11.01.2021, the complainant abandoned the allegation of kidnapping and instead alleged that petitioner No. 1 had forcibly driven her out of the house. Such materially different versions demonstrate that the factual foundation of the prosecution has not remained consistent. He further contended that the FIR further alleges that the petitioners taunted the complainant, after three months of the alleged marriage, on the ground that she had brought less dowry than petitioner No. 5. However, the marriage of petitioner No. 4 and petitioner No. 5 took place approximately one year and three months after the alleged marriage of petitioner No. 1 and the complainant and was solemnized through a community marriage without dowry. Thus, the allegation itself appears inconsistent with the admitted chronology and 6 deserves serious scrutiny. 7. Petitioner No. 1, appearing in person, respectfully submits that the allegations against him and the other petitioners, when considered along with the absence of a clear marital relationship, separate residence, earlier complaints without allegations of dowry cruelty, closure of previous proceedings, absence of subsequent cohabitation, materially inconsistent statements and the lack of specific allegations against petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, do not disclose the ingredients necessary to sustain the prosecution under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC. Petitioner No. 1, therefore, respectfully submits that continuation of the criminal proceedings, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The proceedings appear to have been instituted and continued on changing and inconsistent factual allegations with the object of exerting pressure and causing harassment to the petitioners. The case consequently falls within the principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction for preventing abuse of the process of the Court, including the category recognised in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 355 concerning proceedings instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. 8. Petitioner No. 1, appearing in person, therefore respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioners, in the interest of justice. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the petition. It is submitted that the FIR and the material collected during 7 investigation disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners. The investigation has already culminated in filing of the charge- sheet, cognizance has been taken and charges have been framed. It is further submitted that the trial has already commenced and the complainant has entered the witness box; her examination-in-chief has been recorded and only her cross-examination remains. At this stage, the disputed questions regarding the alleged relationship, the correctness of the allegations and the evidentiary value of the documents relied upon by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The State, therefore, submits that the petitioner may raise all such factual and evidentiary defences before the learned trial Court and that no case for quashing of the proceedings is made out. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS). 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. 8 K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 13. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the BNSS). The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be 9 scuttled at the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self-restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice. 14. 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 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. 15. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the FIR contains allegations which require consideration against the petitioners in the context of the material collected during investigation. The 10 Investigating Officer, after conducting the investigation, collected material in support of the prosecution case and, finding sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners, submitted the charge-sheet before the competent Court. Thereafter, cognizance was taken and charges were framed against the petitioners. The trial has also commenced and the complainant's examination-in-chief has already been recorded, with her cross-examination remaining. 16. The principal submission of petitioner No. 1 is that there was no valid solemnization of marriage between the parties, that the parties never resided together as husband and wife in a shared household, and that the complainant has taken inconsistent positions regarding her marital status and the alleged incidents. Petitioner No. 1 has also relied upon the previous complaints, proceedings before the learned SDM and other documents to contend that the prosecution is motivated and that the allegations against the petitioners are false and inconsistent. However, whether the alleged relationship between the parties constituted a matrimonial relationship, whether the allegations made by the complainant are truthful, whether the previous proceedings have any bearing upon the present prosecution, and whether the material collected during investigation is sufficient to establish the offences alleged are matters which require appreciation of evidence. 17. At this stage, this Court cannot enter into an appreciation of the evidentiary value of the defence material relied upon by petitioner No. 1 or record any finding on the correctness of his explanation. The contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the alleged absence of marriage, 11 inconsistent statements, marital status of the complainant and the circumstances in which the complaints were made involve questions of fact and evidence. Their determination would necessarily require examination and cross-examination of witnesses and appreciation of the documentary and other evidence collected during investigation. Such an exercise would amount to conducting a mini trial, which is impermissible in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 18. It is also significant that the investigation has already culminated in filing of the charge-sheet, cognizance has been taken and charges have already been framed. The trial has commenced and the examination-in- chief of the complainant has been recorded. Only her cross-examination remains. At this advanced stage, the petitioners would have an adequate opportunity to raise all their factual and legal defences before the learned trial Court and to test the allegations of the complainant by way of cross- examination in accordance with law. 19. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within the exceptional category warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS. The material relied upon by the petitioners cannot, at this stage, be held to be of such sterling and impeccable quality as would completely demolish the prosecution case. The defence sought to be raised by the petitioners cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage so as to terminate the criminal proceedings at the threshold. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the ultimate merits of the 12 allegations against the petitioners. The observations made herein are confined to the question as to whether the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS ought to be exercised at this stage. The petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all such grounds and defences before the learned Trial Court, which shall consider the same in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence brought on record, without being influenced by any observation made in the present order. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is made out. The investigation has culminated in filing of the charge-sheet, charges have already been framed and the trial has commenced. The complainant's examination-in-chief has already been recorded and her cross-examination remains to be conducted. At this stage, this Court finds no justification to interdict the criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 21. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the Sessions Case on its own merits and in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan