1 2026:CGHC:6527 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 145 of 2025 1 - Dataram Sahu S/o Vishal Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Chhaichher, Police Station Kasdol, Tehsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vishal Sahu S/o Mahetar Sahu Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Chhaichher, Police Station Kasdol, Tehsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sona Lal S/o Mahetar Sahu Aged About 80 Years R/o Village Chhaichher, Police Station Kasdol, Tehsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ramprasad Sahu S/o Sona Lal Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Chhaichher, Police Station Kasdol, Tehsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Rajkumari Sahu W/o Vishal Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Chhaichher, Police Station Kasdol, Tehsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Kasdol, District- Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Surtiya Sahu W/o Late Hariram Sahu Aged About 51 Years Resident Kharve Police Station Kasdol, District- Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 applicants. Also heard Ms. Ankita Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent No.1/State. 2. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 22.01.2026, the notice was served to the respondent No.2/mother of the deceased on 04.02.2026, but neither the respondent No.2 in person nor through any counsel, is present to contest the matter. Thus, this Court proceeds to hear the matter finally on merits. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the order dated 14.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), District – Baloda Bazar (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. Sessions Case/81/2019, whereby charges have been framed against the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC by the learned trial Court. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that the wife of the applicant No. 1 Smt. Gayatri Sahu (hereinafter called as 'Deceased') died on 04.11.2018 at 6:15 at the District Hospital, Baloda Bazaar, Chhattisgarh and merg No. 159/18 was registered and on the basis of the merg, the prosecution has particularly stated that the applicants with a common intention harassed the deceased physically and mentally due to which the deceased became mentally ill and thereafter, the applicant No. 1 along with his father left the deceased in her own home and thereafter after certain heated talks between the family members agreed to keep the deceased in the matrimonial home and after two days of returning to the home, the deceased's father named Hariram committed suicide for which the FIR was registered against the applicant No. 1 which is pending adjudication and since after 6 months of the incident the death 3 of the deceased occurred in 04.11.2018 in suspicious circumstance while her treatment at District Hospital Baloda Bazaar, a merg intimation was sent to the police and in postmortem, it was opined to be sudden cardiorespiratory arrest and on 17.01.2019, the prosecution had sent the viscera of the body of the deceased for examination in which Alprazolam was found in the body of the deceased and on the basis of the statements recorded by the prosecution FIR has been registered under Section 498-A, 306 and 34 of the IPC alleging that the applicants have harassed the deceased due to which the deceased took such a step to commit suicide. Applicant No.1 is the husband of the deceased, applicant No.2 is her father in law, applicant No.3 is paternal uncle-in-law, applicant No.4 is brother-in-law and after marriage in the year 2012 two children were born out of the lawful wedlock and they were living peacefully for long period of time and all of a sudden the incident happened and thereafter, the applicants were implicated. The prosecution has filed the charge-sheet on 22.10.2019 before the Learned Trial Court in which Offences under Section 498-A, 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the Applicants, and the charges have been framed against the applicants by the trial Court vide order dated 14.01.2024. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant No.1 happens to be the husband of the deceased, and applicant No.2 to 5 are the family members of the applicant No.1 and maternal in-laws of the deceased. It is further contended that from the bare perusal of charge-sheet itself the postmortem report particularly states that there was no injuries which was seen over any part of the body of the 4 deceased and it was also a case where the deceased was having psychiatric treatment for the last 4 to 5 moths and the cause of death was due to sudden cardio pulmonary arrest. It is further contended that the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur (C.G.) vide memo dated 28.05.2019 particularly stated that after due examination it was found that in the body of the deceased drug named ‘Alprazolam’ was found which is a drug used to treat anxiety disorders, panic disorders and anxiety caused by depression for which the deceased’s treatment was ongoing. It is also contended that the FIR was lodged after a delay of more than 8 months although it was an accidental death and merg was prepared and the deceased died due to cardiac arrest, there is no whisper about any harassment caused by the applicants to the deceased in any manner from the postmortem report and only on the basis of the statements of the family of the deceased an afterthought FIR was registered and no satisfactory explanation has been offered to justify the inordinate delay. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant, the against the present FIR bearing Crime No. 385/2019 registered at Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), the applicant has preferred a petition bearing CRMP No.2757/2019, and the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.08.3024. It is also contended that earlier when the father-in-law of the applicant No.1 committed suicide by hanging himself in the tree, an FIR bearing Crime No.161/2018 was also registered against the applicant No.1 and charges were framed against him under Section 306 of IPC, and against framing of charges a criminal revision bearing CRR 5 No.165/2019 was preferred by the applicant, and the same was allowed and the order of trial Court framing charges against the applicant No.1 was set-aside by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.11.2025. 7. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1/State submits that during the course of investigation statements of the various witnesses have been recorded who have clearly stated that the deceased was being harassed by the accused persons for various domestic issue. The said witnesses have clearly stated about the involvement of the applicants in the commission of the offence. Thus, a perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that the applicants were actively involved in meeting out cruelty and harassment to the deceased and thereby forced her to such an extent that she ultimately committed suicide by consuming poison substance. It is further submitted that admittedly, the deceased was living with her husband/applicant No.1 and there is a specific allegation against the applicant No.1 that due to the mental and physical harassment treated by him to the deceased, she committed suicide. Hence, the instant revision is being devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made herein and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. From the perusal of the records and submissions raised by the counsel for the applicant, from a conjoint reading of the documents placed on record, it clearly emerges that applicant No.2 to 5 are the family members of the applicant No.1 and in-laws of the deceased, and the 6 postmortem report particularly states that there was no injuries which was seen over any part of the body of the deceased and it was also a case where the deceased was having psychiatric treatment for the last 4 to 5 moths, and the FIR was lodged after a delay of more than 8 months. Thus, the present case appears to be a fit case for interference by this Court, and the order dated 14.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), District – Baloda Bazar (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. Sessions Case/81/2019, and all consequential proceedings, so far as it relates to the applicants No. 2 to 5 – Vishal Sahu, Sona Lal, Ramprasad Sahu and Smt. Rajkumari Sahu, are hereby quashed. 10. Insofar as applicant No. 1 is concerned, it is borne out from the record that admittedly, the deceased was living with her husband/applicant No.1 and there is a specific allegation against the applicant No.1 that due to the mental and physical harassment treated by him to the deceased, she committed suicide. Therefore, the prayer for quashment of the impugned order of the trial Court framing charges under Sections 498-A, and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, so far as it relates to applicant No. 1 – Dataram Sahu, is hereby rejected. 11. Resultantly, the instant criminal revision is partly allowed. 12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar