1 2026:CGHC:8028-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 995 of 2025 1 - Banmali Joshi S/o Late Jeevan Nath Joshi Aged About 48 Years (Name Of Petitioner Mentioned As Vanmali In Criminal Case Record), R/o Village- Karanji, P.S.- Bakawand, District- Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Vishwanath Joshi S/o Late Jeevan Nath Joshi Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Karanji, P.S.- Bakawand, District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. Kotwali, District- Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Rita Joshi W/o Banmali Joshi Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Karanji, P.S.- Bakawand, District- Bastar (C.G.), (Complainant) 3 - Station House Officer P.S.- Parpa, District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Advocate. For State/Respondent Nos.1 & 3 For Respondent No.2 : : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Advocate, appearing for the State /respondent No.1 and Mr. Keshav Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2/complainant. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers :- “I. It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the F.I.R. dated 13.11.2024 bearing crime no. 534/2024 registered at P.S. Kotwali District Bastar (C.G.) for offence punishable under section 296, 351(2),3(5) of B.N.S. II. It is therefore prayed that the Hon' ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire charge sheet (Annexure P-1), filed on 17.12.2024 before the learned C.J.M. Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) against the petitioners. III. It is therefore prayed that the Hon' ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order taking cognizance dated 24.12.2024 passed by the learned C.J.M. Jagdalpur District Bastar in criminal case no. 4978/2024 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows : (i) The petitioner No.1 is husband of the respondent No.2, and when the petitioner no. 1 was trying to purchase a land at village Ghatpadmoor Tahsil Jagdalpur for constructing a house for his children for their higher studies, he had discussed the same with his brother-in-law (real brother of 3 respondent No. 2) to which the brother-in-law had also showed interest and asked the petitioner No. 1 to buy the property jointly. Thereafter they had jointly purchased a land admeasuring 0.050 hectares or 5500 sq.ft out of Khasra No. 890 area 0.19 hectares at village Ghatpadmoor, P.H.No. 02 R.N.M. Jagdalpur Tahsil Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) through registered sale deed dated 15/07/2014 which was transferred in the name of the petitioner No.1 and brother-in- law in the revenue records. (ii) The brother in law had a land registered on his name at Village Kalipur, P.H.No. 01, R.N.M. Jagdalpur Tahsil Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) bearing khasra no. 163/4, area 0.02 hectares or 2360 sq.ft. After some time, the petitioner No.1 expressed his wish to divide the land of Village Ghatpadmoor and build a house on his part to which the brother-in law suggested that instead of diving the Ghatpadmoor land, the petitioner No.1 may take the land located at Village Kalipur in exchange of his share, to which the petitioner No.1 agreed fell into their trap and exchanged the land. (iii) As per the agreement between the petitioner No.1 and brother-in-law the process of transfer of land at Village Kalipur started to which the respondent No.2 expressed that the land should be transferred in her name. The petitioner No. 1 agreed to the same as she was his legally wedded 4 wife, and the brother-in-law expressed that the petitioner's share of land of Village Ghatpadmoor should be transferred onto the name of his mother (mother-in-law of petitioner No. 1). The petitioner unaware of their pre-planned conspiracy agreed to the settlement in good faith and no amount was transferred by either of the parties. (iv) After the transfer of land at Village Kalipur in the name of the respondent No. 2 a personal loan was duly taken by the petitioner No. 1 from State Bank of India, Bajawand to construct the house which was duly paid by the petitioner No.1 and the house was constructed. (v) After some time the relation between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 (husband and wife) got sour and the respondent No.2 started demanding that the petitioner No.1 should reside at his house at village Karanji and the family of respondent No. 2 will reside in the house at Village Kalipur. They have been living separately since 2019 and all possibilities of reconciliation between them have ended, the respondent No.2 has fraudulently got the house of village Kalipur and the petitioner No. 1 even after paying the loan amount had been evicted. (vi) Thereafter the petitioner No.1 has filed a civil suit for the property against the respondent No.2 and her family members, before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division for getting the possession of the house located at Village 5 Kalipur which has been fraudulently obtained/captured by the respondent No.2, and same is registered as civil suit bearing Civil Suit-A/58/2024. (vii) The respondent No.1 has registered an F.I.R. on 13.11.2024 on complaint made by the respondent No. 2 against the present petitioners for offence punishable under section 296, 351(2), 3(5), of B.N.S. 2023, whereby she has alleged that the present petitioners had come to the house of the respondent No.2 and abused her with filthy language and threatened her to vacate the house in which she is living at present located at Village Kalipur Ph. No. 01, Khasra no. 163/4 admeasuring 0.02 hectares. On such complaint the Police has registered the F.I.R. as Crime No. 534/2024 and thereafter filed the chargesheet before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar on 17.12.2024 and the learned CJM registered the criminal case being Criminal Case No. 4978/2024 and has taken cognizance vide order dated 24.12.2024. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is bad-in-law as the complainant / respondent No. 2, who is wife of petitioner No.1, had lodged the impugned F.I.R. before P.S. Kotwali District Bastar (C.G.) hiding the earlier complaint made by her before the P.S. 6 Parpa District Bastar (C.G.) with similar allegations, in which the police has filed the Ishtagasha report before the learned Tehsildar Jagdalpur District Bastar, which was registered as Ishtagasha No. 236/2024 u/s 126, 135 of B.N.S.S. whereby the learned Tahsildar has issued summons to the petitioners and matter is going on. He further submitted that this present F.I.R. is an afterthought and improvised version of the allegations made in the written complaint before the P.S. Parpa District Bastar (C.G.) based on the same set of facts, which amounts to the abuse of process of law and subjecting the petitioners to double jeopardy. He also submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature, but the respondent No. 2 is trying to misuse the law and giving it a criminal colour as the dispute primarily concerns the possession of the property located at Village Kalipur, Ph. No. 01, Khasra No. 163/4, which is a civil matter and the criminal proceedings have been initiated to pressurize the petitioners to vacate or give up their legal rights over the property. The ingredients of Sections 296, 351(2), and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 are not satisfied in the present case. Mere verbal altercation or dispute over property does not constitute an offense under these sections, hence the same may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2 opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that the contentions advanced by the petitioners are without sum and substance. The present petitioners have filed 7 the instant petition by misleading the actual facts and material suppression. He further submitted that the actual facts of the case are that, after the marriage due to wedlock two children have born and thereafter due to some dispute they are leaving separately and the children are residing in the house of respondent No.2. It is an admitted facts that, the respondent No.2 is an actual owner of the said disputed land and the name of respondent No.2 has been duly recorded in revenue records. He also submitted that respondent No.2 has specifically stated in her complaint that, she is an actual owner and possession holder of said subject land. In her complaint, she has further that, on 05.02.2024 some unknown persons by breaking the lock theft the some goods from her subject house. It has been further stated in the complaint that, on 22.10.2024 again the said crime was committed, then she immediately made a complaint before the concerned police station. It has been also mentioned in the complaint that on 23.10.2024 she received the information that the petitioners broke into the house by breaking the lock and when she complaint and object the same to the petitioners, then they committed threatened to her by using filthy language, then she immediately on 26.10.2024 made a complaint before the concerned police station and after receiving the said information/complaint the concerned police investigated the matter and after investigation the enquiry officer found that, the said crime has been committed by the petitioners then he 8 registered the case for the aforementioned offences against the petitioners. He also submitted that after registering the FIR the concerned police investigated the matter as per law, recorded the statement of victim and other related persons and after completion of investigation has filed the charge sheet before the concerned Magistrate under the aforesaid offences. He lastly submitted that from perusal of the entire challan and statement made by the victim and other persons the aforesaid offences are clearly made out against the petitioners at this stage, hence, he prays to dismiss the instant petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned charge sheet and order taking cognizance. 7. Upon perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet and material placed on record, it is evident that the dispute between the parties arises out of matrimonial discord and ownership/possession of immovable property situated at Village Kalipur. It is not disputed that a civil suit bearing Civil Suit-A/58/2024 is pending before the competent Civil Court with respect to the same property. 8. The allegations in the FIR essentially relate to a quarrel between estranged spouses over possession of the house. The complaint contains general and omnibus allegations that the petitioners abused and threatened the complainant. There is no specific assertion of any public obscene act so as to prima facie attract Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 9 9. Insofar as Section 351(2) BNS (criminal intimidation) is concerned, the essential ingredient is a threat with intent to cause alarm to the complainant. The complaint does not disclose any specific words of threat or circumstances indicating intention to cause alarm. The allegations are vague and lack the foundational ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. 10. In Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere expression of words without intention to cause alarm does not amount to criminal intimidation. 11. When the principal offences are not made out, the application of Section 3(5) BNS (common intention) cannot independently sustain the prosecution. 12. The material further discloses that preventive proceedings under Sections 126 and 135 BNSS were already initiated on similar allegations. Institution of the present FIR on substantially the same set of facts, during pendency of civil proceedings, indicates that the criminal process has been invoked to pressurize the petitioners in a property dispute. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down illustrative categories where criminal proceedings may be quashed, including cases where: • The allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence; 10 • The criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance or to pressurize the accused. The present case squarely falls within the said categories. 14. Further, in Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 293 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when the dispute is predominantly civil in nature, criminal proceedings should not be permitted to be used as a weapon of harassment. 15. Though the power under Section 528 BNSS is to be exercised sparingly, as reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 where the uncontroverted allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction. 16. In the present case, even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, they do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. The continuation of criminal proceedings would therefore amount to abuse of the process of Court. 17. In view of the aforesaid analysis and the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings have been initiated in the backdrop of a civil property 11 dispute between estranged spouses and do not disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 296, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 18. The case falls within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of law. 19. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The FIR dated 13.11.2024 bearing Crime No. 534/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bastar, the charge-sheet dated 17.12.2024 filed in Criminal Case No. 4978/2024, and the order dated 24.12.2024 taking cognizance are hereby quashed. 20. It is clarified that any observations made herein are confined to adjudication of the present petition and shall not affect the merits of the pending civil proceedings between the parties. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra