NAFR

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. S. Baghel learned Govt. Advocate, for the State/Respondent No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4/ complainant.

2. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer :-

“It is, therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned chargesheet No.117/2024 filed on 06-12-2024 along with the order dated 25-02-2025 (along with the proceeding) passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur District Raipur (C.G) in Criminal Case No.2040/2025 (State of CG Vs Praveen Chandrakar and Others) arising out of the Crime/FIR No.70/2024 registered before the Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) on 12-06-2024, in the interest of justice.”

3. The present case arises out of a matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 (husband) and respondent No.4 (wife), a head constable in the Chhattisgarh Police, who were married on 11.12.2020 and resided together for about one year. Thereafter, disputes arose, and the respondent began living separately from December 2021. On 28.02.2024, after a delay of about 2.5 years, respondent No.4 lodged a complaint at Mahila Thana, Raipur, alleging dowry demand, physical and mental harassment, leading to registration of FIR dated 12.06.2024 under Section 498A IPC initially against petitioner No.1, and later, upon filing of charge sheet dated 06.01.2025, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (in-laws) were also implicated along with addition of Sections 377 and 34 IPC. The petitioners contend that the allegations are vague, delayed, and motivated, arising out of financial and matrimonial disputes relating to property and monetary contributions, and assert misuse of legal provisions by respondent No.4, who allegedly pressured for divorce and threatened false implication, while also highlighting procedural lapses such as non-compliance of Section 41-A CrPC and absence of specific instances of alleged harassment in the complaint and charge sheet.

4. Learned counsel for the State, in his reply, would submit that the FIR in Crime No. 70/2024 was registered on the basis of a written complaint disclosing cognizable offences under Sections 498-A, 377 and 34 IPC, and upon due investigation, the involvement of the petitioners was found, culminating in filing of charge-sheet dated 06.12.2024. The learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance, and prima facie material exists on record including statements of the complainant and other witnesses corroborating allegations of cruelty, harassment, and unlawful conduct. It is settled law that inherent jurisdiction for quashing is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where no offence is made out on the face of record; however, in the present case, disputed questions of fact and appreciation of evidence are involved, which can only be adjudicated during trial. The petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy to raise all their defenses at the stage of framing of charge and during trial, and cannot seek pre-trial adjudication by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction. There is no procedural illegality, arbitrariness, or abuse of process demonstrated warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed in limine.

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4/ complainant, in his reply, would submit that the FIR and subsequent charge-sheet clearly disclose specific and serious allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, physical and mental harassment, and unnatural offences committed by the petitioners, which are duly supported by statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded during investigation. The respondent No.4, despite making sincere efforts to preserve the matrimonial relationship, was subjected to co