1 2026:CGHC:9003-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 544 of 2026 1 - Smt. Rajkumari Gupta W/o Jagannath Prasad Gupta Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Karpavand, P.S. Karpavand, Distt. Baster, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Santosh Gupta S/o Jagannath Prasad Gupta Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Karpavand, P.S. Karpavand, Distt. Baster, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Lata Gupta W/o Santosh Gupta Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Karpavand, P.S. Karpavand, Distt. Baster, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Karpavand, Distt. Baster, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Virendra Prasad Gupta S/o Late Mahendra Prasad Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Amiyawar, P.S. Nasriganj, Distt. Rohtas, Bihar. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner seeking following prayer :- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the First Information Report No. 78/2025 registered on 26/10/2025 by the Police of Police Station – Karpavand, District – Baster (C.G.) against the petitioners for the commission of offence which is punishable under Section 296, 115(2), 108, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in the interest of justice.” 3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.10.2025 at about 20:30 hours, the informant - Satyendra Gupta gave an intimation at Police Station, Karpavand that his marriage was solemnized with the deceased Shristi Gupta 12 years ago and he has two children namely Siya Gupta aged 10 years and Shreyash Gupta, aged 6 years. On 15.10.2025, at about 8:00 in the morning, the deceased was scolding the children and was also assaulting them. When this was objected to by him, quarrel took place between them and in the night at about 10:25 p.m, the deceased went to the second floor of the house and when she fell on the floor, on hearing the sound, the mother of the informant - Rajkumari Gupta called them and when all the family members came there, they saw that blood was oozing out and the deceased had sustained serious injuries on head, ear, hand and 3 was in a state of unconsciousness. When she was taken to the hospital, she was declared dead. Merg intimation was recorded by the police and during the course of investigation, the husband- Satendra Gupta, mother-in-law Rajkumari Gupta, brother-in-law (Jeth) Santosh Gupta, and sister-in-law (Jethani) Lata Gupta were found to have abetted the deceased to commit suicide and as such, the offence under Section 296, 115(2), 108(, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) was registered against them under Crime No. 78/2025. 4. After registration of the First Information Report, the petitioners have preferred the anticipatory bail before this Court vide MCRC(A) No.1771/2025 and the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14/11/2025, against which, the petitioners have preferred the Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).20594/2025 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 18/12/2025. Hence, this petition seeking quashment of the impugned FIR. 5. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. There is a delay of more than 10 days in lodging the FIR. The marriage between Satyendra Gupta and the deceased had taken place 14 years ago and during these period, there has been no complaint made by the deceased with regard 4 to treating her with cruelty or demand of dowry. In fact on account of some petty household dispute, the deceased committed suicide when the husband of the deceased had merely objected the scolding and assaulting being made by the deceased to her children. He further submitted there is no material available on record to establish that the petitioners have abeted the deceased in commission of suicide. In fact, it was the petitioners themselves who had taken her to the hospital where unfortunately the deceased died. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mahendra Awase Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 801. He also submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is the mother-in-law, and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are Jeth and Jethani of the deceased and they have also been falsely roped in this case without any rhyme or reason. As such, prayer is made for quashing of the impugned FIR. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate opposed the aforesaid submissions and submitted that the FIR and material collected during investigation clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences under the provisions of the BNS. At this stage, while exercising inherent jurisdiction, this Hon’ble Court is not required to conduct a detailed examination of evidence or hold a mini-trial. He further submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR is properly explained, as the matter initially proceeded as a merg inquiry and arose out 5 of an unnatural death within the matrimonial home. Such delay is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is also submitted that statements of witnesses and other material collected during investigation prima facie indicate harassment and abetment by the petitioners. The specific roles of each accused have surfaced and cannot be discarded merely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased. Whether the allegations are ultimately proved is a matter for trial. It is also contended that the anticipatory bail of the petitioners has already been rejected by this Court and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the present petition is an attempt to circumvent those orders. Accordingly, as a prima facie case is made out, the petition seeking quashment of the FIR deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners. 8. It is well settled that while exercising inherent powers for quashment of an FIR, the Court is only required to see whether the allegations made in the complaint/FIR, taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, disclose the commission of an offence. The Court cannot embark upon appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini-trial. In this regard, reference may be made to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of 6 Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the parameters for quashing criminal proceedings have been enumerated. Unless the case falls within the categories carved out therein, interference is not warranted. 9. Further, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power to quash should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and that ordinarily courts should not thwart investigation into cognizable offences at the threshold. 10. Similarly, in State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, it has been held that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution and that disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into at the stage of quashing. 11. In the present case, the contentions regarding delay in lodging the FIR, absence of prior complaints, and alleged false implication involve disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence and can be adjudicated only during trial. At this stage, this Court is not expected to evaluate the sufficiency or reliability of the material collected during investigation. 12. It is also pertinent that the petitioners’ anticipatory bail application has already been rejected by this Court and thereafter by the 7 Hon’ble Supreme Court. The present petition, therefore, cannot be permitted to serve as a substitute for discharge or trial. 13. In view of the settled legal position and as the case does not fall within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) for quashing of proceedings, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference is made out. 14. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra