1 2026:CGHC:7955-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 480 of 2026 Rajesh Kumar Banjare @ Rajesh Banjare S/o Shri Sant Kumar Banjare Aged About 33 Years (As Per Adhar Card), R/o Khursi Thana And Tehsil Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh - Bilaigarh , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Deapartment Of Home (Police) Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Of Police District- Sarangarh - Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Officer In Charge, Police Station Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh - Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Rajkumari Jangde W/o Late Shri Malikram Jangde, Aged About 32 Years R/o Khursi Thana And Tehsil Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh - Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.02.2026 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.02.13 17:32:30 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “(1) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned First Information Report bearing Crime No.467 of 2025 registered at Police Station Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh on 13/09/2025 for alleged offence punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyay Samhita 2023. (2) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to quash the impugned charge sheet bearing no.553 of 2025 filed pursuant to the impugned FIR for alleged offence punishable under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023 Copy of impugned charge sheet containing the impugned FIR as provided by the Learned Court Below is ANNEXURE P-1. (3) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the order dated 08/01/2026 passed in Session Trial No.03/2026 "State of C.G. vs. Rajesh Kumar Banjare" as well the entire proceedings of the said case which is pending before the Learned II Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, C.G. Copy of entire order sheets of Session Trial No.3 of 2026 "State of Chhattisgarh vs. Rajesh Kumar Banjare" is being filed herewith as ANNEXURE P-2. 3 (4) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass such other orders as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the husband of respondent No.4, Late Shri Malikram Jangde, died on 16/04/2025 at City Health Center (CHC), Sarangarh, whereupon a merg intimation was given the same day by ward boy Kishore Bhagat S/o Sitaram Bhagat to Police Station Sarangarh. After an unexplained delay of about five months, an FIR bearing Crime No.467/2025 was registered on 13/09/2025 against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023, alleging that on 20/03/2025 the petitioner had eve teased respondent No.4 while she was going for bath, which was seen by the deceased, and that the petitioner used to threaten the deceased stating that he would keep respondent No.4 as his wife, on account of such alleged teasing and threats, the deceased is stated to have consumed poison on 26/03/2025 and, after undergoing treatment, died on 16/04/2025 at 6:30 PM. It is further alleged that the deceased committed suicide due to the threats extended by the petitioner. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 15/10/2025 in MCRCA No.1591/2025. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet before the CJM, Sarangarh. Thereafter, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions and cognizance was taken on 08/01/2026, registering 4 Sessions Trial No.03/2026 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Rajesh Kumar Banjare), which is presently pending before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, with charges yet to be framed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very initiation and continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings amount to gross abuse of the process of law, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to secure the ends of justice. It is contended that a bare reading of the FIR and the entire charge- sheet, even if taken at their face value and accepted in toto, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 108 of the BNS, as there is no material to show any instigation, intentional aid, or such continued course of conduct which left the deceased with no other option except to commit suicide. The allegations are stated to be patently false, frivolous, vexatious and actuated by malafides, with an unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which is fatal to the prosecution case. Placing reliance on the celebrated judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, it is argued that where the uncontroverted allegations do not constitute any offence, the proceedings deserve to be quashed. Further reliance is placed on Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 9 SCC 618, Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 5 SCC 371 and Kumar @ 5 Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 156, wherein it has been consistently held that mere words uttered in anger or stray allegations, absent mens rea and proximate instigation, do not constitute abetment of suicide. The petitioner also relies upon Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2025 INSC 990 and Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2024 INSC 2010 to contend that in the absence of cogent material showing direct or proximate incitement, criminal prosecution cannot be sustained. It is thus submitted that there is no dying declaration, no proximate act, and no material suggesting that the deceased was left with no alternative, and therefore continuance of the impugned proceedings would result in undue harassment and miscarriage of justice, necessitating quashment of the same. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the FIR and the material collected during investigation clearly disclose the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 108 of the BNS, and at this stage the Court is not required to meticulously examine the evidence or conduct a mini trial. It is contended that the statements of witnesses indicate continuous harassment and threats extended by the petitioner to the deceased, which prima facie establish a proximate link between the acts of the petitioner and the extreme step taken by the deceased. The question whether such acts amount to instigation or abetment is a matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. It is 6 further submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR has been sufficiently explained in the course of investigation and that the charge-sheet having been filed and cognizance taken, the present petition is premature and devoid of merit. Therefore, no case for interference is made out and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned State counsel further submits that a bare perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that the merg intimation in Inquest No.44/2025 was initially registered at Police Station- Sarangarh upon information given by Kishore Bhagat, Ward Boy, CHC Sarangarh, stating that deceased Malikram Jangde had been brought to the hospital on 16.04.2025 at 6:30 PM in a condition described as brain dead due to alleged poisoning and was declared dead during treatment. During the course of inquiry under Section 194 BNSS, the Investigating Officer conducted inquest proceedings, inspected the spot and recorded statements of the deceased’s wife Rajkumari Jangde, his elder brother Bholaram Jangde, Rambha Bai Jangde, Salikram Tandon and other witnesses, and also examined mobile call details. On such inquiry, it was alleged that the accused Rajesh Banjare of village Khursi used to harass the deceased by pressuring him to allow physical relations with his wife and threatening to keep her as his own wife. On 20.03.2025 he allegedly teased and made gestures towards the deceased’s wife while she was going to bathe, which was witnessed by the deceased and he continued to threaten the 7 deceased over mobile phone, causing humiliation in the family and locality, as a result of which the deceased’s wife temporarily left for her parental home. It is further alleged that, feeling insulted and under public shame due to such alleged conduct and threats, the deceased consumed “Koranda 505” insecticide on 26.03.2025 and subsequently died during treatment on 16.04.2025, and before his death, he had orally stated to certain villagers and relatives that he had consumed poison due to harassment by the accused. On the basis of these allegations, the crime was accordingly registered and the investigation was proceeded. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. The scope of interference under Section 528 of the BNSS (analogous to Section 482 CrPC) is well settled and is to be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence or where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process. In the present case, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations in the FIR, and the material collected during investigation, this Court is of the opinion that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding against the petitioner and the issues raised involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. At this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence or that the proceedings are manifestly 8 attended with mala fides. Accordingly, no ground for quashment is made out and the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet