1 2026:CGHC:2927-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 193 of 2026 1 - Karan Jogewar S/o Jitendra Jogewar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o J-5 Old Adarsh Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jitendra Jogewar S/o Late Shri S.R. Jogewar, Aged About 61 Years, R/o J-5 Old Adarsh Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Aruna Jogewar W/o Jitendra Jogewar, Aged About 55 Years, R/o J-5 Old Adarsh Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shambhavi Jogewar D/o Jitendra Jogewar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Varun Sargam Villa, Flat No. 109, Somajiguda, District : Hyderabad, Telangana ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Suprientendent of Police District Durg, S.P. Office, Collectorate, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Town Inspector, Mahila Thana Durg, Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Bharti Akulwar W/o Karan Jogewar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Aamdi Ram Mandir, Station Road Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.01.20 17:52:05 +0530 2 ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. T.K. Tiwari and Ms. Veethika Choubey, Advocate. For State-Respondents : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19 -01-2026 1. Heard Mr. T.K. Tiwari and Ms. Veethika Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State-respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:-s “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to order as to quash the FIR No.0078/2025 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, Durg, Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar, Bhilai, Durg, (C.G.) dated 05/12/2025 (Annexure P-1) registered against the petitioners for the alleged offences under section 85, 3 (5) of B.N.S., by allowing this petition in the ends of justice.” 3. The present petition has been filed by the husband /petitioner No.1 along with other petitioners No.2 to 4, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of present respondent No.4/wife and it transpires from the record that earlier the petitioners No.2, 3 3 and 4 have filed CRMP No.27 of 2026 wherein their petition was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 08-01-2026. 4. In para No.14 of the order dated 08-01-2026 passed in CRMP No..27 of 2026 this Court has observed that:- “14. During the course of hearing, when this Court specifically queried learned counsel for the petitioners as to why the husband, Karan Jogewar, had not been impleaded as a petitioner in the present proceedings, it was submitted that the husband would face the consequences of law, whereas the parents-in-law and sister-in-law deserved protection. This submission does not assist the petitioners, particularly in view of the specific allegations made against all accused persons in the FIR and the collective nature of the alleged acts.” 5. On pointed query being made from the learned counsel for the petitioners as to why the present petition has again been filed for the same cause of action on behalf of the petitioners No.2 to 4, he states that as in the earlier petition the husband who is petitioner No.1 in the present petition, Karan Jogewar has not filed the same, hence, the present petition has been filed. But, the said explanation cannot be accepted as the earlier petition filed on behalf of petitioners No.2 to 4 has already been dismissed on merits. Hence, the present petition filed on behalf of petitioners No.2 to 4 is dismissed with cost of Rs.15,000/-. 4 6. The cost Rs.15,000/- shall be deposited by the petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 (Rs. 5000/- each) within one month from today, failing which it shall be recovered as arrears of the land revenue by the Registrar General of this Court in accordance with law. 7. Heard on the petition filed by petitioner No.1. 8. A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that the complainant, a resident of Amdi, Durg, was married to Karan Jogewar on 05.07.2022 according to social customs. Within one week of marriage, she was subjected to continuous mental and physical cruelty by her husband Karan Jogewar, father-in-law Jitendra Jogewar, mother- in-law Aruna Jogewar, and sister-in-law Shambhavi Jogewar. It is alleged that the husband physically assaulted her, while the other accused persons instigated and supported such acts. She was repeatedly taunted for bringing insufficient dowry, humiliated for belonging to a poor family, and subjected to abusive language. It is further alleged that the accused deliberately concealed the husband’s physical/sexual incapacity prior to marriage and deceived the complainant into entering the matrimonial relationship. The sister-in-law is alleged to have persistently harassed the complainant and imposed unreasonable restrictions on her daily life. Due to continuous cruelty, the complainant was allegedly expelled from the matrimonial home on 03.12.2024. Counselling proceedings conducted on 12.07.2025 and 26.07.2025 failed, and upon enquiry, prima facie material was 5 found warranting registration of the offence. 9. It is a settled principle of law that once an FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences, investigation must proceed in accordance with law, and the High Court would not ordinarily exercise its inherent powers to stifle such investigation at its inception. Disputed questions of fact necessarily require investigation and trial. 10. As we have already dismissed the petition filed on behalf of petitioners No.2 to 4, parents and sister of petitioner No.1 and there is serious allegation against the petitioner No.1 also as transpires from the FIR, we are not inclined to allow the petition filed by petitioner No.1 and the same is also dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil