High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31536-DB NAFR AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.10 11:33:18 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1193 of 2025 1 - Lakshmi Bajaj W/o Late Jitendra Bajaj Aged About 34 Years R/o A/1 606, Gwalani Pride Shubham Vihar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dheeraj @ Appu Chandnani S/o Lt. Manoj Kumar Chandnani Aged About 35 Years R/o A/1 606, Gwalani Pride Shubham Chhattisgarh. Vihar, Bilaspur, 3 - Rani Bai W/o Lt. Manoj Kumar Chandnani Aged About 51 Years R/o A/1 606, Gwalani Pride Shubham Vihar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shyam Lalchandani S/o Lt. K.D. Lalchandani Aged About 45 Years R/o Sindhi Colony, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. versus --- Petitioners 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police Chhattisgarh. Bilaspur, Bilaspur, District 2 - Station House Officer Police Station Civil Lines Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. District Bilaspur,
Legal Reasoning
3 - Smt. Shakuntala Bajaj W/o Shri Mohan Bajaj Aged About 60 Years R/o 225, Ward No. 5, Asandas Gali, Sindhi Colony Chhattisgarh. Bilaspur, Bilaspur, District 4 - Vishnu Yadav Sub-Inspector Police Station- Civil Lines, Chhattisgarh. Bilaspur, Bilaspur, District 5 - Pradeep Kumar Arya S.H.O., Police Station- Civil Lines, Chhattisgarh. Bilaspur, Bilaspur, District 6 - Pooran Singh Baghel Sub-Inspector, Police Station- Civil Chhattisgarh. Lines, Bilaspur, Bilaspur, District 2 7 - Harvindar Khonte Head Constable, Police Station- Civil Chhattisgarh. Lines, Bilaspur, Bilaspur, District 8 - Shobhnath Yadav Sub-Inspector, Police Station- Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents And CRMP No. 833 of 2025 1 - Lakshmi Bajaj W/o Late Jitendra Bajaj Aged About 34 Years R/o A/1 606, Gwalani Pride Shubham Vihar, Bilaspur, (C.G.) 2 - Dheeraj @ Appu Chandnani S/o Lt. Manoj Kumar Chandnani Aged About 35 Years R/o A/1 606, Gwalani Pride Shubham Vihar, Bilaspur, (C.G.) 3 - Rani Bai W/o Late Manoj Kumar Chandnani Aged About 51 Years R/o A/1 606, Gwalani Pride Shubham Vihar, Bilaspur, (C.G.) 4 - Shyam Lalchandani S/o Lt. K.D. Lalchandani Aged About 44 Years R/o Sindhi Colony, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, (C.G.) ---Petitioners Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Petitioners For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy.A.G. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate For Respondent Nos.4,5 & 7 : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 3 09.07.2025 CRMP No. 1193/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:- “A. It is, therefore, prayed that this hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the chargesheet of crime no. 0636/2024 against the petitioners registered before the police station civil lines bilaspur and also qauashing of the cognizance taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur district bilaspur (c.g.) In criminal case no. 469/2025 as well as the further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 469/2025 for an offence u/s 306/34 of ipc pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur,district Bilaspur (c.g.), In the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that on 16.07.2022 at about 8.45 a.m. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Security Guard Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur informed the Police Station regarding committing suicide by the husband of petitioner No.1 namely; Jitendra Bajaj (since deceased), R/o Chandra Apartment, Brihaspati Market, Bilaspur. The Police registered the case and took the matter under investigation. The postmortem of the dead body was conducted, in which the Doctor opined the reason of death is due to hanging. During the investigation, the mobile of the 4 deceased was seized. The Police recorded the statement of family members of the deceased namely mother Shakuntala Bajaj, brother Sandeep Bajaj, Saurabh Bajaj & Sumit Bajaj. In the enquiry, it is found that deceased’s brother-in-law Appu @ Dheeraj, mother-in-law Rani were living in the house of deceased since 2 years, thus, the deceased had to maintain them also. They also captured the shop of the deceased. Lakshmi Bajaj wife of the deceased along with her brother and mother tortured the deceased, due to which deceased Jitendra Bajaj committed suicide. After due investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet before the Trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegation so leveled against the petitioners are false and frivolous and is only to harass and humiliate the petitioners along with other co-accused. After the death of deceased, his brothers and mother did not depose anything against the petitioners when their statement has been recorded just after the death of late Jitendra. In the present crime, the police has recorded the statement of the petitioner in which she has categorically stated against the brothers and mother of the husband of the petitioner No. 1 and also submitted relevant documents before the police and the police has not taken any action against the the brothers and mother of the husband of the petitioner No. 1. When the petitioner No.1 has lodged a report against brother of the deceased under Section 354 & 506 5 of IPC and when the summons has been issued in relation to the criminal case in which the petitioner No. 1 is a witness, they have put pressure upon the petitioner No. 1 not to go for evidence against Sandeep for that very reason due to absence of the petitioner No. 1 as a witness, the learned trial Court has issued the bailable warrant against the petitioner No. 1 but the brothers and mother of the husband of the petitioner No. 1 again and again made hindrance for witnessing the petitioner against Sandeep and they have also given threatening for defaming the petitioner No. 1 in society and also gave threatening for abduction of her minor son. So, the petitioner No. 1 has informed the police and the police has registered the case on 15/07/2024 and then on the same date, the respondent No. 5 on behalf of the brothers and mother of the husband of the petitioner No. 1 lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioners which prima-facie is a false and frivolous FIR as a counterblast for the report of the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that on 17/06/2025 the matter is sub judice before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur and the same has been committed to the learned Sessions Court. He further submits that the matter is placed for hearing on 18/07/2025 before the District and Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Bilaspur. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 would submit that the Respondent No.3 is the mother of the deceased Jitendra Bajaj 6 in the present case and because of the harassment caused by the Petitioners, the son of the Respondent No.3 has committed suicide. The Petitioner No.1 has been harassing the family of the Respondent No.3 since the time of her marriage. Firstly, she created a toxic environment in the family and subsequently persuaded the deceased to live separately. Due to the constant persuasion of the Petitioner No.1, the deceased not only left the joint family but he also had to separate his business from his brothers who used to jointly operate the business. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the Petitioner No.1 lodged a false report because there was a property dispute between the family of Respondent No.3 family and the Petitioner No.1. Prior to lodging of the report, the Respondent's son lodged a complaint on 30.7.2022 at PS Civil Lines, Bilaspur and also sent a written complaint to the I.G., Bilaspur on 02.08.2022 alleging therein that due to harassment by the Petitioners herein, his brother has committed suicide and also threatened to kill his son in the womb. The Respondent No.3 has also made similar complaint on 29.09.2022. The Petitioner No. 1 in order to save herself from the said complaints, as a counterblast, the Petitioner No.1 has filed the complaint against Sandeep bajaj on 20.01.2023 u/s 354 and against the Respondent No.3 and her family on 11.03.2024 u/s 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC. The true copy of the complaints preferred by the Respondent No.3 and her family dated 30.07.2022, 02.08.2022 and 20.09.2022. 7 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 8. Bare perusal of the entire material available on record, it is quite vivid that the allegation so leveled against the petitioners are false and frivolous and is only to harass and humiliate the petitioners. It is also evident that after the death of deceased, his brothers and mother did not depose anything against the petitioners when their statement has been recorded just after the death of late Jitendra. When the petitioner No. 1 has lodged a report against the brothers of the deceased under section 354 and 506 of the IPC & when summons has been issued in relation to the said criminal case lodged at the behest of the petitioner No.1, the present crime has been registered on the FIR lodged by mother and brother of deceased. The impugned FIR against the petitioners is appears to be a counter blast only to save themselves from the FIR lodged by the petitioner No.1. Even in the present crime, the police has recorded the statement of the petitioner in which she has categorically stated against the brothers and mother of the husband of the petitioner No. 1. 9. It is also evident from the charge-sheet that no suicidal note left by the deceased alleging anything against the present petitioners, who are the wife and in-laws of the deceased. From pleadings and contention of parties, theimpugned FIR appears 8 to be lodged against the petitioners is a after thought allegation based on concocted facts. The impugned FIR dated 16.07.2024 lodged against the petitioners, when the petitioner No.1 lodged a report against her brother-in-law under Section 354 of IPC on 20.01.2023. Though the alleged incident occurred on 16.07.2022, but the impugned FIR against the petitioners has been lodged on 16.07.2024, though after the suicide of deceased, the mother & brother of deceased had not alleged anything against the petitioners. 10. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, no offence under Section 306/34 is made out against the petitioners,hence, the FIR No.636/2024 dated 16.07.2024 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur; the charge- sheet bearing No.72/2025 dated 27.01.2025 and also consequent proceedings in Criminal Case No.469/2025 for the offence under Section 306/34 are hereby quashed. 11. Accordingly, the petitioner i.e. CRMP No.1193/2025 stands allowed. CRMP No.833/2025 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners seek permission of this Court to withdraw this petition. 13. In view of above submission, the petition i.e. CRMP No.833/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep/Shoaib