2026:CGHC:11580-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 704 of 2026 Vindvasini Prasad Shukla S/o Lt. Ram Sumer Shukla Aged About 61 Years R/o Sakin Ward 05, Chingari Para, Bhilai Supela, Durg, Chhattisgarh (As Per The Charge Sheet) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Of P.S. - Utai, District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Pooja Tiwari W/o Vijay Pandey, Aged About 33 Years R/o In Front Of Sakin Sai Hospital, Megh Market, Utai, Thana - Utai, District- Durg , Chhattisgarh (As Per The Charge Sheet) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Soumya Rai, Dy GA For Private Respondent : None appears --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11.03.2026 Heard Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Soumya Rai, learned Dy GA for the State. 1. Present petition has been filed with the following prayer: Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.03.18 12:03:56 +0530 Crmp 704 of 2026 2 “(A) It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and pleased to quash registration of First Information report no.505/2025 vide First Information report dated 22.12.2025 for the offence u/s 318(4), 85 of BNS, 2023 registered by the Police Station Utai, District Durg Chhattisgarh against the petitioner, charge sheet no.478/2025 vide charge sheet dated 29/12/2025 for the offence u/s 318(4), 85 of BNS filed against the present petitioner, order of cognizance dated 08/01/2026 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Durg Chhattisgarh has taken the cognizance in charge sheet no.478/2025 for the offence under section 318(4), 85 of BNS against the petitioner, and further criminal proceeding in RCC/158/2026 in state of Chhattisgarh versus Vijay Pandey and Ors, in the interest of justice. (B) any other relief/order may also be granted that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. According to the prosecution story, during the course of marriage negotiations of respondent-2 and the co-accused Vijay Kumar Pandey, present petitioner acted as mediator in arranging the marriage, and allegedly failed to disclose certain facts with respect to the previous marriage and divorce of Vijay Kumar Pandey to the family members of Crmp 704 of 2026 3 respondent-2 at the time of solemnization of marriage. On the basis of aforesaid allegations by respondent-2, FIR has been registered against the petitioner and charge-sheet was filed by the Police Station-Utai, District-Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner runs a grocery shop in the locality where the relatives of respondent No.2 and the co-accused are also residing. He only helped in passing over the information to the parties and helped in marriage of the co-accused Vijay Kumar Pandey. Even if the entire case of prosecution will be accepted on its face value, no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner herein, except that he allegedly acted as a mediator in arranging the marriage of respondent-2 and the co-accused Vijay Kumar Pandey. The FIR does not disclose that petitioner has any previous knowledge about the alleged previous marriage of co-accused. Mere acting as a mediator does not create criminal liability upon the petitioner as he does not stand as a guarantor of the personal history of either party in the marriage. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner also filed various complaints to the concerned authorities against the false allegations made by the respondents, copy of which annexed as Annexure-P/3(colly). It is pertinent to mention here that in the present Crmp 704 of 2026 4 crime No.505/2025, petitioner has been granted regular bail by the learned trial Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the petition and would submit that the FIR in question was registered on the basis of a written complaint made by the complainant/respondent-2 and after completion of due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. He would further submit that the allegations levelled in the FIR and the charge-sheet disclose the commission of cognizable offence, which require appreciation of evidence in the trial. The defence raised by the petitioner is matter of evidence which may be examined by the trial Court during trial, and do not, by themselves, constitute a ground for quashment of the FIR, charge-sheet, or the criminal proceeding at the threshold. Therefore, present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. From perusal of the FIR as well as charge-sheet, it transpires that there is an allegation, that the petitioner acted as mediator for the marriage of respondent-2 and the co-accused Vijay Kumar Pandey. Whether or not the petitioner committed an offence is to be decided after recording evidence of the parties, however, in the charge-sheet there is sufficient material to proceed with the trial. Crmp 704 of 2026 5 7. In the matter of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 192, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :- “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: (i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; Crmp 704 of 2026 6 (ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; (iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; (iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). (v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; (vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; (vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; (viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread Crmp 704 of 2026 7 over the other sphere; (ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; (x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;” 8. In the present case, there is allegation against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 318(4) and 85 of the BNS 2023, and the complainant alleged that the present petitioner who was the mediator in her marriage with the co-accused Vijay Kumar Pandey, has not disclosed the correct fact of his earlier marriage and kept her under the assurance that Vijay Kumar Pandey is an employee of reputed business concern at Nagpur, Maharashtra, and was earning Rs.90,000/- per month. After her marriage, when she came into knowledge about earlier marriage of co- accused Vijay Kumar Pandey, she felt cheated by the accused persons, and lodged the report against the accused persons, including the present petitioner. Consent for marriage was obtained under misconception of facts, and from the FIR, as well as statement of the complainant, her father, brother, mother, there are sufficient prima facie allegations against the present petitioner to proceed with the trial of the case. Crmp 704 of 2026 8 9. There is allegation against the present petitioner of commission of offence under Sections 318(4) and 85 of the BNS, 2023, and further at this stage it cannot be said that only on account of being mediator for solemnization of marriage, present FIR has been lodged by respondent-2. Legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR, or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and the Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint if taken at its face value, and accepted at its entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence, or make out a case against the accused, FIR or charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. 10. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, material annexed with the petition and further considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited above, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma