High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.08.07 18:55:58 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:39050-DB NAFR CRMP No. 263 of 2020 Nimish Sunil Agarwal S/o Shri Sunil Agarwal Aged About 40 Years R/o 1/45, Motilal Nehru Nagar (East) Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh versus Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Supela, Chowki- Smriti Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
prima facie case warranting investigation and trial. The complainant has alleged acts that, if proved, may attract the provisions of Sections 294 and 506 IPC. The FIR was registered based on the complainant’s version, and after due investigation, a charge sheet has been filed. At this stage, the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations cannot be adjudicated summarily, and the petitioner has the opportunity to contest the charges during trial. Hence, the petition for quashing may not be entertained at this preliminary stage. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents. 6. On a careful consideration of the facts placed on record and the submissions advanced by both sides, it is evident that the impugned 6 criminal proceedings arise out of a deeply strained matrimonial dispute and appear to have been initiated with the intent to frustrate the petitioner’s legally recognized visitation rights. The chronology of events clearly suggests that the complaint was filed not as a bona fide attempt to seek redress, but rather as a retaliatory step timed with the petitioner’s pursuit of custody and access to his minor daughter. 7. The Court is reminded that the criminal justice system must not be used as a means to settle personal scores or to exert undue pressure in collateral civil or family disputes. The allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of any cognizable offence, particularly under Sections 294 and 506 IPC. Letting such proceedings continue would not serve the ends of justice, but would instead amount to unnecessary harassment and misuse of judicial time and resources. 8. It is well-settled that when the process of law is used to achieve an ulterior motive, it amounts to an abuse of process, and in such situations, the High Court is empowered to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No. 735/2019 dated 29.07.2019 registered at Police Station Supela, District – Durg, along with the charge sheet No. 762/2019 dated 02.11.2019 and the connected Criminal Case No. RCC 9048/2019 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, are hereby quashed, in the 7 interest of justice, to prevent further abuse of the legal process and to secure the rights of the petitioner. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri
Arguments
2 - Smt. Ruhi Agrawal W/o Nimish Agarwal Aged About 36 Years D/o Vijay Agrawal, R/o Deepak Nagar, Road No.3, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Complainant), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocates For State For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Jaideep Singh Yadav, Advocate : Mr. Shangarsh Pandey, GA Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06/08/2025 1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, instituted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for grant of following prayer:- 2 “It is therefore most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and the entire criminal proceedings i.e. Criminal Case No. RCC 9048/2019 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg in the matter of "State of Chhattisgarh v. Nimish Sunil Agarwal" may kindly be quashed/set-aside and the F.I.R. bearing No. 735/2019 registered at Police Station Supela, District - Durg and the entire charge sheet numbered 762 / 2019 dated 02.11.2019 filed by the police, may also kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice”. 2. Facts of the case are that a FIR bearing Cr.No.735/2019 was lodged by Respondent No. 2, Ruhi Agarwal, on 1.8.2019 alleging that on 28.07.2019, in compliance with an order of the Court, she took her daughter Ku.Nirwana to Café Coffee Day at Surya Mall, Junwani, for her visitation with her father (the petitioner). During this meeting, when the child showed no interest in interacting with her father, he allegedly became angry, abused both the complainant and the child, and threatened to kill them. Based on this complaint, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under relevant legal provisions, and an investigation was conducted. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the allegations were found to be substantiated, and a chargesheet was filed against the accused bearing No.762/2019 dated 2.11.2019. Based upon the same, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, registered a case bearing RCC No.9048/2019, which is under challenge in the instant petition. 3. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, on 3 28.07.2019, the petitioner did not interact with the minor daughter due to the presence of Respondent No. 2 at the designated meeting place. In such circumstances, the question of the petitioner threatening the child does not arise at all. It is submitted that the FIR in question has been lodged by the respondent No.2 wife with an oblique motive, solely with the intent to frustrate and curtail the petitioner’s court-granted visitation rights with his duaghter. Learned counsel further submits that on each occasion when the petitioner sought to meet his daughter in accordance with the directions of the Court, Respondent No. 2 was invariably present, despite repeated requests by the petitioner to allow him to interact with the child alone/privately. It is further submitted that, even assuming the allegations made in the FIR and the charge sheet to be true in their entirety, the essential ingredients constituting offences under Sections 294 and 506 of the IPC are not made out against the petitioner. (b) It is submitted by the learned cousnel that no prior investigation was properly carried out before filing of the charge sheet. Furthermore, the petitioner contended at para 11 of the instant petition that the police authorities have erroneously shown him as “absconding” in the charge sheet, despite the fact that he had duly appeared before the police as and when directed. On the date of filing the charge sheet, the petitioner had informed the concerned authorities that he would be unavailable due to personal commitments. However, despite such intimation, the police 4 proceeded to declare him an absconder. He would submit that the petitioner is cooperating fully with the investigation. (c) Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner, being the biological father of minor Nirvana Nimish Rai, had instituted custody proceedings under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking permanent custody of his daughter. The petitioner and Respondent No. 2, Ruhi Agrawal, were married on 16.01.2007 and their daughter was born on 12.01.2012. Owing to marital discord, the parties separated in 2016, following which the respondent lodged a false FIR against the petitioner and his family. Though a compromise was entered into and a substantial amount of ₹3.05 crores was paid by the petitioner, the respondent failed to honour the terms by not withdrawing the criminal proceedings, indicating her non-cooperative and hostile conduct. The petitioner further submits that the respondent is suffering from a serious medical condition (AVM), and has consistently neglected her medical care and parental duties, resulting in emotional harm and physical abuse to the child. Additionally, the respondent has unilaterally taken decisions affecting the child’s education and identity, including altering school admissions and passport details without the petitioner’s consent. (d) Learned counsel would further submit that despite the High Court’s order dated 07.09.2018 directing expeditious disposal of custody proceedings, the respondent deliberately delayed the matter. When the High Court scheduled a hearing on 05.08.2019 to ascertain the child’s 5 wishes, the respondent, in an attempt to frustrate the petitioner’s rights, lodged another false complaint on 29.07.2019, resulting in registration of FIR No. 735/2019. (e) This, along with earlier similar conduct, reveals a clear pattern of vindictiveness intended to alienate the child and harass the petitioner. The petitioner, who is financially and emotionally capable of caring for the child, prays that FIR No. 735/2019 and the corresponding charge sheet No. 762/2019 dated 02.11.2019 be quashed as an abuse of the legal process and a tool to prejudice the ongoing custody proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned cousnel for the complainant submit that the allegations made in the complaint disclose a