1 2026:CGHC:15238-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 863 of 2026 1 - Smt. Arun Chandra (Aruna) W/o Late Vasudev Chandra, Aged About 50 Years R/o H. No. 94, Avinash Capital Homes, Saddu Raipur CG 2 - Smt. Harshita Chandra, W/o Bijit Das, Aged About 31 Years R/o H.No. 94, Avinash Capital Homes, Saddu, Raipur CG ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, PS City Kotwali, Raipur CG 2 - Smt. Saharteen Bai Chandra W/o Late Mangal Das Chandra, R/o Vasu Coaching, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, CG ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 02.04.2026 1 Heard Mr. Raja Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned 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 BNSS has been preferred by the petitioners with the following prayers :- “(a) QUASH AND SET ASIDE the FIR No. 0354/2025 dated 22/12/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, for the alleged offences under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Annexure P/1), and ALL consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the investigation currently being undertaken by Police Station City Kotwali, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh but not limited to any chargesheet, cognizance order, summons, or trial proceedings; and (b) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 3 Prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Vasudev Chandra committed suicide by hanging at his Coaching Centre on the intervening night of 03-04/12/2025. His body was discovered on 04/12/2025 at approximately 10:30 am. A handwritten document titled "Nivedan Patra" dated 29/11/2025 was recovered near the body, in which the deceased attributed blame to the Petitioners, who are his wife and daughter and one Amit Mahilange for alleged "extortion" and "conspiracy for property." A pen drive was also produced by the relatives of the deceased containing a video of the deceased. The Post-Mortem examination was conducted on 04/12/2025 at 3:45 PM by Dr. S.N. Manjhi (Senior Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, J.N.Μ. Medical College, Raipur) and Dr. Tushar Salvatkar (PG Resident). The 3 post-mortem opinion conclusively established: "Death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging and duration of death is within 24 hours, prior to postmortem examination. Copy of Post Mortem Report is Annexure P/5. The impugned FIR No. 0354/2025 was registered on 22/12/2025 i.e. 18 days after the date of death of deceased at the instance of respondent No.2 Saharteen Bai Chandra at Police Station, City Kotwali, Raipur, under Sections 108 and 3(5) BNS, 2023. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner with the aforementioned prayers. It is pertinent to mention herein that petitioner No.2 Smt. Harshita Chandra havs already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 110 of 2026 vide order dated 21.01.2026. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the deceased committed suicide in the intervening night of 03-04/12/2025 and the impugned FIR has been registered on 22/12/2025 i.e. after 18 days of the incident, which is fatal to the prosecution’s case. He further submitted that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, where the principal act (death) is known to all parties on the very day of occurrence, an unexplained delay of 18 days in lodging the FIR raises a strong and irresistible inference that the FIR is an after thought, lodged after deliberation, consultation and construction of fabricated narrative. He further submitted that the alleged suicide note “Nivedan Patra” is dated 28/11/2025 and the suicide occurred on the intervening night of 03-04/12/2025 i.e. there is clear gap on 4-5 days and the said gap severs the 4 immediately required for instigation. He also submitted though there is allegation of the deceased husband that petitioner No.1 wife is having illicit relation with another person and she used to extort the deceased for money, whereas the fact of the matter is that they are living separately since last 10-12 years with no regular interaction and the petitioner No.1 as well as petitioner No.2 have already made complaint against the deceased alleging domestic violation, physical assault, criminal intimidation and sexual assault and so far as allegation of demand of money is concerned, the amount was demanded for marriage of petitioner No.2, who is daughter of the deceased. He also submitted that the entire FIR proceeds on the basis of a disputed handwritten note and a pen drive video allegedly made by the deceased. There is no evidence of any direct act of instigation, harassment, or provocation immediately preceding the act of suicide. The alleged financial disputes between the spouses concerning property and matrimonial finances do not, even at their highest, constitute abetment of suicide within the meaning of Section 108 BNS. 5 Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the petition is misconceived and not maintainable. The FIR, though registered after 18 days, cannot be quashed merely on the ground of delay, especially where it discloses cognizable offences based on the suicide note and video, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) 1 SCC 335. The 5 allegations prima facie disclose elements of abetment of suicide under Section 108 BNS, 2023, which require investigation to determine the role of the petitioners, and the question of “immediate provocation” or prior disputes is a matter of fact for investigation, not for pre-trial determination, as reiterated in Sushil Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2005) 11 SCC 600. He also submitted that the petitioners’ contentions regarding prior separation or financial disputes cannot preclude investigation. 6 On a pointed query being asked to learned counsel for the petitioners as how he is seeking quashment of the impugned FIR without annexing the alleged suicide note and video produced by the deceased’s relatives, which prima facie disclose cognizable offences under Section 108 BNS, 2023, he could not give any satisfactory explanation and only stated that as the charge-sheet has not been filed he could not file the alleged suicide note. 7 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR alleging abetment of suicide, whereas the investigation is still at a preliminary stage and no charge sheet has been filed. 8 The allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose cognizable offences under Section 108 BNS, 2023, which require proper investigation. The Court further finds that at this stage, it is not appropriate to examine the merits or veracity of the allegations, as 6 the veracity of evidence and the role of the petitioners can only be determined after completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet. 9 In view of the settled position of law, including the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) 1 SCC 335 and Sushil Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2005) 11 SCC 600, the Court holds that no ground is made out for interference at this stage. 10 Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra