##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:20043-DB

NAFR

Digitally HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

signed by

BABLU

BABLU RAJENDRA

RAJENDRA BHANARKAR

BHANARKARDate:

2026.04.30

18:23:37

+0530

CRMP No. 1219 of 2026

Vijay Kumar Pandey S/o Late Uday Chand Pandey Aged About 42

Years R/o Plot No. 49, New Kailash Nagar, Kurud, Bhilai, P.S.- Jamul,

Distt.- Durg (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-

Utai, District- Durg (C.G.)

2 - Smt. Pooja Tiwari W/o Vijay Kumar Pandey Aged About 33 Years

R/o Megh Bazar, Utai, In Front Of Sai Hospital Tehsil And District- Durg

(C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Adarsh Rajput, Advocate

For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate

No.1-State

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

30.04.2026

1. Heard Mr.Adarsh Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner as well

as Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for

2

respondent No.1/State.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking

following relief(s):

“It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may

kindly be pleased to allow this instant petition and

quash FIR bearing Crime No.0505/2025 dated

22/12/2025 and charge sheet bearing No.478/25

dated 29.12.2025 filed against the petitioner by the

Police Station Utai District Durg (C.G.) for

commission of offence which is punishable under

section 318(4),85 of B.N.S. Act and set aside the

order dated 08.01.2026 passed in RCC/MJC

Criminal Case No.158/2026, passed by Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Durg, District Durg (C.G.),

whereby the Magistrate has taken the cognizance of

the chargesheet and the entire consequential

proceedings, in the interest of justice.”

3. Facts of the case are that petitioner, Vijay Kumar Pandey,

solemnized marriage with Respondent No. 2 on 24.11.2025 at

Utai as per Hindu rites and customs. Prior to the marriage, in July

2025, the petitioner had clearly disclosed to the parents of

Respondent No. 2 about his earlier marriage (solemnized in April

2016) and the subsequent divorce by mutual consent dated

19.12.2023 passed by the Family Court, Durg. The said fact was

within the knowledge of Respondent No. 2 and her family before

engagement. Thereafter, with the consent of both families, the

engagement was performed on 04.08.2025, and the marriage was

3

fixed and solemnized on 24.11.2025. During the period between

engagement and marriage, the petitioner and Respondent No. 2

remained in regular contact, met frequently, went on outings, and

jointly made preparations for the marriage, reflecting a cordial and

voluntary relationship and no dowry was ever demanded or

accepted by the petitioner or his family members. On the contrary,

the petitioner incurred expenses towards marriage arrangements

and customary items.

4. After marriage, Respondent No. 2 resided at the matrimonial

home from 25.11.2025 and lived peacefully without raising any

grievance. On 01.12.2025, on the pretext of the “Pag Phera”

ritual, Respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home along with her

brother, taking her belongings and certain articles, and thereafter

refused to return. Despite this, she remained in contact with the

petitioner through calls and messages without making any

allegations. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 allegedly made

unlawful demands, including transfer of the petitioner’s house in

her name and living separately from his family, and upon refusal,

threatened to implicate the petitioner in false criminal cases.

Thereafter, a complaint dated 22.12.2025 was lodged against the

petitioner, and a charge-sheet was filed on 29.12.2025 with

alleged mala fide intention.

5. The petitioner also submitted a complaint dated 31.12.2025

before the Inspector General of Police, Durg, alleging

4

harassment, unlawful demands, and removal of valuables by

Respondent No. 2. It is further alleged that the

relatives/associates of Respondent No. 2 demanded a sum of

₹1,00,00,000/- for settlement, f