1 2026:CGHC:2112-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 125 of 2026 Mayank Chhallani S/o Shri Vinod Chhallani Aged About 40 Years R/o Ganj Road, Nawapara, P.S. Gobra- Nawapara, District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Gobra- Nawapara, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Shri Mahendra Jain @ Chandu Lal S/o Shri Gulab Chand Jain Aged About 74 Years R/o Ward No. 05, Station Para, Gobra-Nawapara, P.S. Gobra- Nawapara, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel for the petitioner as well ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.14 17:54:24 +0530 2 as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition with the following reliefs :- “1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly call for Case Diary of the Crime No. 245/2025 registered before the Police Station Gobra Nawapara, District Raipur (C.G.) &; 2. The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the First Information Report No. 245/2025 dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) & Chargesheet No. 220/2025 dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-2) & Order of Cognizance dated 04.09.2025 as well as further Criminal Proceedings of Sessions Case No. 377/2025 including Order of Committal dated 27.10.2025 and Order dated 10.11.2025 of registration of Sessions Case No. 377/2025 (Annexure P-3) under Section 108, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 pending against the present Petitioner before the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (CG), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that on 30.07.2024 at Gobra-Nawapara, District Raipur (C.G.), one Saurabh Jain committed suicide by hanging himself in his own house. Immediately upon receipt of merg intimation, the police conducted inquiry on the very same day and recorded the statements of the deceased’s parents and wife, who were present at the spot. In 3 their contemporaneous statements, it was categorically stated that the deceased was addicted to gambling, was under a debt of about ₹2–2.5 lakhs, and due to such financial distress took the extreme step; no allegation or suspicion was raised against any person whatsoever. 4. Nearly one month thereafter, on 02.08.2024, the father of the deceased for the first time produced an alleged suicide note during the merg proceedings, wherein it was stated that certain persons, including the present Petitioner, had sold the deceased’s house and shop at a lesser value and had not returned certain amounts, purportedly causing him mental stress. Despite the fact that the initial merg report and statements of the family members consistently attributed the suicide to gambling addiction and personal debt, after an unexplained delay of almost eleven months from the date of incident, an FIR dated 04.07.2025 came to be registered at the instance of Respondent No.2 under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, alleging abetment of suicide against the Petitioner and other co- accused, who are stated to be distant relatives of the deceased. It is relevant to note that the Petitioner had cordial relations with the deceased and his family and had, in fact, extended financial assistance to the deceased’s father on several occasions. 5. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the Petitioner, who had voluntarily cooperated with the investigation, was arrested, 4 whereas the other co-accused were granted anticipatory bail. Subsequently, the Petitioner was also enlarged on regular bail by the competent Court. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the Petitioner and other co-accused under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., whereafter cognizance was taken by the JMFC, Raipur on 04.09.2025, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Raipur, being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. 6. Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, filing of the charge-sheet, and continuation of the criminal proceedings, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition after complying with the liberty and conditions granted earlier by this Court. 7. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR (Annexure P-1), Charge-sheet (Annexure P-2), and the Order taking cognizance along with the consequential criminal proceedings (Annexure P-3) are ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. It is contended that even if the allegations contained in the FIR are accepted at their face value and in their entirety, no offence under Sections 108 or 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 is made out against the Petitioner. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no material on record to suggest any instigation, 5 conspiracy, or intentional aid on the part of the Petitioner which could remotely amount to abetment of suicide. The contemporaneous statements recorded during the merg inquiry, immediately after the incident, including those of the complainant himself, clearly exonerate the Petitioner and categorically state that the deceased was addicted to gambling, was under financial distress, and committed suicide on account of his own circumstances. These statements completely negate any allegation of harassment, provocation, or active involvement of the Petitioner. 8. Mr. Shrivastava further submits that the FIR has been lodged after an unexplained and inordinate delay of nearly eleven months from the date of the incident, and the alleged suicide note is said to have surfaced only after several days of the incident, which makes the prosecution case highly suspicious and indicative of mala fide intentions. There is no material establishing any proximate or direct nexus between the alleged acts of the Petitioner and the suicide of the deceased; hence, the basic and essential ingredients of abetment are wholly absent. It is also submitted that the Respondent No.2 has subsequently concocted a false story of abetment as an afterthought, whereas his own initial statements unequivocally admit that the deceased committed suicide due to gambling addiction and debt. As per Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (pari materia to Section 306 IPC), the prosecution is required to establish suicide, 6 abetment by way of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, mens rea, and a live and proximate link between the conduct of the accused and the suicide. None of these requirements are satisfied in the present case. 9. It is contended by Mr. Shrivastava that the investigation itself is unfair and tainted, as the police suppressed vital facts, including that the deceased and his family were under substantial bank debt and had sold their house to co-accused Surit Jain for a valid consideration of ₹45,00,000/-, duly paid by cheque to the deceased’s mother, as reflected in the registered sale deed (Annexure P-5). The allegation that the property was sold at a meagre value of ₹7,55,000/- is, therefore, demonstrably false. Likewise, no material has been brought on record to substantiate the allegation regarding non-payment of ₹9,80,000/- of alleged “Kisan Bachat Khata,” which further exposes the falsity of the prosecution story. It is further submitted that the Respondent No.1-Police deliberately ignored crucial facts disclosed during merg inquiry, including that the deceased had attempted suicide earlier in the year 2018, was suffering from a serious ailment, and had undergone medical treatment at Raipur with financial assistance arranged by the Petitioner on the request of the complainant himself. Despite being informed of these facts, the police failed to investigate them and, instead, falsely implicated the Petitioner to give a colour of abetment to a case of personal and financial distress of the deceased. 7 10. Mr. Shrivastava placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC 801, particularly paragraphs 12, 16, 19, 23 & 24, wherein it has been held that for attracting the offence of abetment of suicide, there must be clear and cogent material showing active instigation or intentional acts which leave the deceased with no option except to commit suicide, and mere allegations, heated exchanges, or financial disputes do not constitute abetment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further cautioned against casual and mechanical invocation of provisions relating to abetment of suicide. 11. Reliance is also placed on the settled principles laid down in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122, Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, to contend that the present case squarely falls within the categories where the High Court is justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings, as the allegations are vague, inherently improbable, maliciously motivated, and do not disclose commission of offence. 12. It is thus submitted by Mr. Shrivastava that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner would amount to sheer harassment, misuse of the criminal justice machinery, and a grave miscarriage of justice. The FIR having been lodged after an 8 inordinate delay of eleven months itself demonstrates that the complaint is an afterthought, lodged only to harass the Petitioner with an oblique motive. Hence, the learned counsel prays that the FIR, charge-sheet, order of cognizance, and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed in the interest of justice. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1, opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the Petitioner and submits that the present petition is not maintainable. It is contended that the FIR (Annexure P-1) was lodged in accordance with the provisions of law and that the police, upon receiving the merg intimation, conducted a fair and lawful investigation, ultimately culminating in the filing of the charge-sheet (Annexure P-2) after due verification of the facts. He further submits that the allegations contained in the FIR, including the purported suicide note, cannot be lightly brushed aside merely on the ground of delay or subsequent statements. The delay in lodging the FIR does not per se vitiate the investigation, as cases involving financial disputes, alleged misappropriation, and abetment to suicide often come to light after a considerable lapse of time. 14. It is further submitted by Mr. Baghel that the case involves serious allegations of abetment under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, which require thorough 9 investigation and judicial scrutiny. The statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded subsequently, as well as the materials collected during investigation, indicate that prima facie a case is made out against the Petitioner and co-accused, warranting continuation of the proceedings. He contends that the Petitioner's reliance on the judgments in Mahendra Awase (supra) and other cases is misplaced, as the facts therein are distinguishable. In the present case, the investigation has revealed sufficient material to establish that there exists at least a prima facie link between the alleged acts of the Petitioner and the suicide of the deceased, and therefore, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. 15. It is submitted by Mr. Baghel that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the B.N.S., must be cautious and not interfere at the pre-trial stage merely on the basis of submissions challenging the credibility or sufficiency of the evidence, as it is the prerogative of the trial Court to examine the evidence in detail and decide on the merits of the case. 16. Mr. Baghel lastly submits that, on similar facts and circumstances, CRMP No. 80/2026 filed before this Court was considered and dismissed, vide order dated 12.01.2026. Learned State counsel contends that the principles and reasoning applied in that case are squarely applicable to the present matter, reinforcing that no interference is warranted at this stage, and the petition seeking 10 quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, and consequential proceedings is liable to be dismissed. 17. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and have carefully perused the documents annexed with the present petition. 18. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that the investigation was conducted in a detailed and systematic manner by the police following the receipt of the merg intimation. The informant, Shri Mahendra Jain, and other witnesses, including the deceased’s father and relatives, provided statements during the inquest and merg proceedings, which were carefully recorded. The post-mortem examination confirmed that the cause of death was due to hanging. 19. During the course of the investigation, a suicide note was produced by the deceased’s father on 02.08.2024, which was seized in the presence of witnesses. Forensic examination by a handwriting expert confirmed that the note was in the handwriting of the deceased, Saurabh Jain. The contents of the note specifically implicated certain persons, namely Abhay Dau, Mayank Chhallani, Jitendra Bangani, Surit Jain, as well as Vikas Bangani, alleging that they had sold the deceased’s house and shop at an undervalued price and had not returned certain funds, which caused the deceased mental distress leading to his suicide. 11 20. Based on the materials collected including the FIR, site inspection, body panchnama, post-mortem report, statements of the applicant and other witnesses, and the suicide note, the police found prima facie evidence of offences under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. Consequently, Crime No. 245/2025 was registered. During investigation, statements of the accused, including the Petitioner Mahendra Jain alias Chandu Jain, and other co-accused were recorded. While some of the accused were released on anticipatory bail, Mayank Chhallani was arrested on 04.07.2025 after due procedure, and the reasons for arrest were recorded in writing in the presence of witnesses. 21. On completion of the investigation, having gathered sufficient evidence against the accused for the alleged offences, the police submitted Charge-sheet No. 220/25 dated 21.08.2025 before the competent Court. The charge-sheet details the evidentiary basis of the allegations, including witness statements, seizure of the suicide note, handwriting analysis, and documentary evidence relating to the disputed property and financial transactions. 22. Thus, from perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that the investigation was conducted in accordance with statutory requirements, and a prima facie case was made out against the Petitioner and other co-accused, necessitating the taking of cognizance by the competent Court and commencement of trial proceedings. 12 23. Upon careful scrutiny of the charge-sheet and other investigative records, it is evident that the investigation was conducted in a detailed and methodical manner. The statements of the informant and other witnesses were recorded contemporaneously during the merg inquiry and inquest. The post-mortem examination confirmed that the cause of death was hanging. The alleged suicide note, produced by the deceased’s father nearly a month after the incident, was subjected to forensic verification, and the handwriting expert confirmed that it corresponded to the handwriting of the deceased, Saurabh Jain. The note specifically implicated certain individuals, including the Petitioner, alleging that they had sold the deceased’s house and shop at an undervalued price and failed to return certain amounts, causing mental stress to the deceased. 24. It is further observed that the Petitioner’s allegations of suppression of vital facts, including prior financial transactions and previous suicide attempts by the deceased, are matters which require detailed examination and cannot be the basis for pre- emptive quashing of proceedings. Similarly, assertions regarding the alleged falsity of property transactions or financial disputes are disputed facts that can only be properly adjudicated during the trial after appreciation of the evidence by the competent Court. 25. The legal principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, as well 13 as established precedents including Mahendra Awase (supra), Bhajan Lal (supra), Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (supra) and Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra), clearly indicate that High Courts should exercise caution while interfering at the pre-trial stage. Quashing is warranted only in cases where allegations are wholly frivolous, vexatious, or barred by law. Mere delay in lodging FIR, financial disputes, or the existence of conflicting statements does not, in itself, justify interference when a prima facie case exists. 26. In the present case, the materials collected by the police indicate that there exists prima facie evidence against the Petitioner and other co-accused under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. There is a potential nexus between the alleged acts of the accused and the suicide of the deceased, and the trial Court is competent to examine all evidence in detail, assess credibility, and determine the veracity of allegations. Interference by this Court at this stage would amount to judicial overreach and denial of the opportunity of trial to the parties. 27. It is also relevant to note that on similar facts and circumstances, this Court had earlier considered and dismissed a petition under CRMP No. 80/2026 vide order dated 12.01.2026. The reasoning in that case, which involved delayed FIR, belated suicide note, and disputed financial transactions, is squarely applicable to the present matter. There is no material distinction that would warrant a departure from the principles applied in that decision. 14 28. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds that the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in the ongoing criminal proceedings. The FIR, charge-sheet, order of cognizance, and all consequential proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage, as the matter involves serious allegations which require detailed adjudication by the competent trial Court. Continuation of the proceedings is necessary to ensure that justice is administered in accordance with law and that the parties are afforded a proper forum for trial. 29. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The FIR No. 245/2025 dated 04.07.2025, Charge- sheet No. 220/2025 dated 21.08.2025, order of cognizance dated 04.09.2025, and all consequential proceedings, including Sessions Case No. 377/2025 pending before the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, shall continue. 30. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu