1 - Pushkar Sinha And Another S/o Late Shri K. N. Sinha, Aged About v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Stat
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.06.20 18:04:16 +0530 2025:CGHC:25496-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1300 of 2017 1 - Pushkar Sinha And Another S/o Late Shri K. N. Sinha, Aged About 32 Years Occupation Advocate, R /o Near Mannu Chowk, Tikrapara, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pawan Shrivastava, S/o Shri Surendra Shrivastava, Aged About 41 Years Occupation Advocate, R/o Behind Thakurdeo Temple, Near Gandhi Chowk, Old High Court, Bilapsur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioners Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mrs. Nitu Srivastava W/o Late Pankaj Shrivastava Aged About 39 Years R/o - Old Opp. Old High Court Road, Jaiswal Gali, Bilaspur, C.G. Pin No. 495001. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Md. Zakir Anand Shah and Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate as well as Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, in person For Respondent-State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate For Private Respondent : Ms. Nitu Shrivastava, in person General 2 Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 1 8 .06.2025 1. By filing this petition, the petitioners have challenged the First Information Report (for short, ‘FIR’) bearing Crime No.181/2016 registered at City Kotwali, Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 468, 471, 120(B), 34 of the IPC as also under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘IT Act’), with the following relief(s):- “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to quash The applicants being aggrieved with the criminal prosecution vide Case No.14382/2016, registered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur (Annexure A/1) and Final Report no.181/2016 (Annexure A/2) in the interest of justice. Any other order that may be deemed fit and just on the fact and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice.” 2.
Legal Reasoning
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.). 19. In the well celebrated judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 605, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows: “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety to do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 18 (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that 19 there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 20. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the 20 allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the First Information Report or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 21. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.) is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.), only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. Further, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.) , final conclusions are as under:- 21 “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; 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; 22 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 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; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go 23 into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self- restraint imposed by law, more particularly 24 the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the 25 pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/ disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is 26 prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.” 22. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the 27 submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner relate to the questions of fact, and thus, can not be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 23. From perusal of the FIR, it transpires that the same has been lodged by the wife of Late Pankaj Shrivastava against Pawan Shrivastava and Pushkar Sinha on the allegation that in order to grab the property of her husband, both of them were outraged the modesty of wife of Late Pankaj Shrivastava, for which they have deleted some part of the WhatsApp chat, and during investigation, it has been found that the offences under Sections 417, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the IPC as well as Section 66 of the IT Act have been made out. It has been further transpires from the FIR that some parts of the WhastApp chats have been filed by Pawan Shrivastava in his bail application, which was not sustainable in the eyes of law and the said attempt is being used to harm her through fraudulent means. 24. From the above stated case laws, it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners can not be examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 28 25. In view of the material on record, it cannot be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. FIR can be quashed only in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions rendered by it. 26. The Courts should oust and obstruct unscrupulous litigants from invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the drop of a hat to file an application for quashing of launching an FIR or investigation and then seek relief by an interim order. 27. It is the obligation of the Court to keep such unprincipled and unethical litigants at bay. It is intellectual truancy to avoid the precedents and issue directions which are not in consonance with law. It is the duty of a Judge to sustain the judicial balance and not to think of an order which can cause trauma to the process of adjudication. It should be borne in mind that the culture of adjudication is stabilised when intellectual discipline is maintained and further when such discipline constantly keeps guard on the mind. 28. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly from the perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. It has been further considering the fact that the present petitioners have been enlarged on anticipatory bail as well as charge-sheet bearing 29 No.181/2016 has already been filed as also the charges have already been framed and the Criminal Case before No.14382/2016 has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, as such, the present petition being CRMP No.1300/2017 does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction to quash the impugned FIR, charge-sheet as also the order framing charge. 29. In the result, instant petition being CRMP No.1300/2017 filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR dated 12.05.2016 bearing Crime No.181/2016 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of the IPC as well as Section 66 of the IT Act, charge-sheet bearing Final Report No.181/2016, order framing charge as well as Criminal Case No.14382/2016 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, is hereby refused and the present petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Anu
Arguments
Brief facts of the cases, in nutshell, are that Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava has committed suicide in the intervening night of 07- 3 08.03.2014 in Bilaspur, who was an Advocate and all the petitioners are member of the noble profession of Advocacy and are Practicing Lawyers of this Hon'ble Court. The complainant namely Smt. Nitu Shrivastava is widow of deceased Pankaj Shrivastava. Shri Pushkar Sinha is the cousin (maternal uncle's son) of Late Pankaj Shrivastava. Mr. who committed suicide on the intervening night of 07-08 March, 2014 in Bilaspur. Shri Surendra Prasad Shrivastava is the father, Smt. Meena Shrivastava is the mother, Shri Pawan Shrivastava is the brother and Smt. Padma Shrivastava is the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of Late Pankaj Shrivastava. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they came to learn that the relations between Late Pankaj Shrivastava and the complainant as husband and wife were not cordial and the complainant deserted Late Pankaj Shrivastava for pursuing her acting career in glamour world. She was residing at Delhi and was in the habit of pressurizing Late Pankaj Shrivastava for sending money in the bank account of the complainant and her father. The aforesaid fact of compelling Late Pankaj Shrivastava for keep sending money was told by Late Pankaj Shrivastava himself to his father. The moment/minute before death of Late Pankaj Shrivastava was in telephonic conversation/call with the complainant and it is the complainant who informed the family members of Late Pankaj Shrivastava about the suicide of her husband. The fact of death 4 of Late Pankaj Shrivastava came to know about the family members of the Late Pankaj Shrivastava through the mobile phone of Late Pankaj Shrivastava, in which in the previous moments of death he was engaged in mobile communication through mobile application software namely Whatsapp with the complainant and the discussion between them was going on between them with regard to extra marital relations of complainant with some boy of Hyderabad. The aforesaid fact of betrayal and disloyalty and the confession of the same were the reasons behind suicide of Late Pankaj Shrivastava. 4. After the aforesaid unfortunate event, the petitioners went to the house of deceased Pankaj Shrivastava for his last rites and rituals, which was performed in the parental house of the deceased situated at Fazalbada, behind City Dispensary, Bilaspur. On 23.03.2014, Shri Surendra Prasad Shrivastava, the father of Late Pankaj Shrivastava made a written complaint to the Station House Incharge, Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur alleging that there are sufficient circumstances in the case pointing towards the guilt of the complainant in committing the offence under Section 306 of the IPC and as a counterblast to the aforesaid complaint, on 29.03.2014, the complainant has also made a complaint to the Police alleging that the family members of Late Pankaj Shrivastava were pressurizing her husband for money and property. The Police did not take any action on the 5 aforesaid complaint and hence, the father of Late Pankaj Shrivastava made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur for initiating investigation against the complainant. The complainant started pressurizing the family of Late Pankaj Shrivastava for taking the complaint back otherwise she threatened the entire family to be roped in false cases. As such, the father of Late Pankaj Shrivastava was left with no other option, but to make a representation to the Governor on 04.04.2014. The Complainant tried to dispose of the property belonging to the joint family of Late Pankaj Shrivastava by selling and dispossessing the family which was strongly resisted by the family and in this regard, the petitioners were contacted by the family of Late Pankaj Shrivastava and the applicant after being appointed as Lawyer of the family took steps to protect the interest of his client irrespective of the relations and in this regard sent legal notices to different institutions; such as Life Insurance Corporation Ltd. (LIC), State Bank of India (SBI)-Life Insurance Company. 5. It is further case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 also received notices/ communications from the above institutions in the capacity of lawyer of the family and petitioner No.1 as a Lawyer of the family has got instituted a civil suit vide Succession Case No.23/2014 before the learned First Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur (C.G.) in which restraining orders have been passed 6 against complainant. The learned First Civil Judge, Class-I has also vide order dated 28.08.2014 allowed the application filed by petitioner No.1 on behalf of his clients and has passed temporary injunction against the complainant from receiving any insurance funds from Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. In the meanwhile, the complainant got her name mutated over the lands situated at village Bodri, Bilaspur which is a joint family property. The petitioner No.1 as a counsel of the family got the aforesaid mutation order set aside in appeal vide order dated 25.04.2015 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Bilaspur (C.G.). Petitioner No.1 also advised and got instituted a civil suit for the above land at Bodri and other landed properties vide Civil Suit No. 178A/2014 in which vide order dated 06.09.2014, the learned First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur has passed order of temporary injunction restraining the complainant from transferring the title and possession of the joint family property to anyone. Since the petitioner No.1 was instrumental in getting the evil designs of the complainant frustrated, therefore a malice / grudge was nurtured in her mind against the petitioners. The complainant started forging false and concocted stories of cruelty being meted out to her after the death of her husband. In this regard, upon one such complaint made to the City Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur by the complainant, the aforesaid CSP called explanation from the petitioner No.1 which was replied to by him applicant vide his letter dated 13.08.2014 that since petitioner 7 No.1 is the counsel of the family and earlier refused to help the complainant to assist in her conspiracy the aforesaid complaint has been motivatedly lodged. In the meanwhile, the father of Late Pankaj Shrivastava filed a writ petition vide WPCR No.134/2014 on 05.08.2014 for a direction to the police to enquire into and investigate upon the complaint made by him with regard to abetment of suicide by the complainant. This Court vide order dated 09.01.2015 directed the police to process the matter and submit a final report in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1. After the direction of this Court, the case was registered against the complainant bearing Crime No.26/2015 on 06.02.2015 after taking one month further time and the learned Court has passed the order dated 09.01.2015. Thereafter, the complainant subsequently as an afterthought has also filed a writ petition on 15.01.2015 seeking similar directions for registration of crime against the family members of the petitioners vide WPCR No.27/2015, which was pending consideration. The Complainant with the aid and assistance of the aforesaid IGP got prepared and submitted a report through Additional Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, in which it has been opined by the ACP that no case under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the complainant, but a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is made out against the family members of Late Pankaj Shrivastava as 8 per the complaint dated 31.07.2014 made by the complainant. The aspect of delay in FIR has not been dealt with by the ACP in his report and the entire gamut of allegations has been leveled by the complainant after the death of her husband. 6. On the same day, i.e. on 28.06.2015, FIR has also been registered by the Police deliberately against unknown persons on the complaint made by the complainant that the property and gold/silver articles of the complainant including original papers of property have been stolen. Direct and indirect allegations have been made against the petitioners and family members of late Pankaj Shrivastava in the aforesaid FIR, which clearly demonstrates unfair, partial, motivated and discriminatory action of the State authorities. The FIR bearing Crime No.143/2015 has also been registered against the petitioners i.e. family members of Late Pankaj Shrivastava on the same day i.e. on 28.06.2015 under Section 498-A and 34 of the IPC surprisingly upon complaint dated 31.07.2014 made by the complainant. 7. The above FIR/prosecution is manifestly attended with mala fides of the complainant coupled with police assistance. The following members of the family are accused in the impugned crime :- 1. Surendra Shrivastava (Father) 2. Meena Kumari (Mother) 3. Pawan Shrivastava (Brother) 9 4. Padma Shrivastava (Brother's wife) 5. Pushkar Sinha (the applicant/counsel of the family) 8. It is also the case of the petitioners that due to registration of impugned crime, the petitioners were constrained to move an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 09.07.2015 on behalf of father, mother and sister-in-law of Late Pankaj Shrivastava and rejected the prayer of bail on behalf of brother of Late Pankaj Shrivastava i.e. Shri Pawan Shrivastava and later, he was released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Bilaspur on 10.07.2015. 9. The petitioners have earlier preferred two petitions, i.e. CRMP Nos.802/2015 and 908/2015 for quashing of earlier FIR No.143/2015 on various grounds and the Court has passed an interim order on 21.09.2015 in CRMP No.802/2015 and on 21.12.2015 in CRMP No.908/2015 to the effect that commencement of the proceeding on the basis of the FIR agaisnt the petitioners shall not be proceeded. The authorities did not comply with the interim order and hence, a contempt petition has been filed by petitioner No.1 vide Cont. Case (C) No.122/2016, in which notices have been issued to the contemnors. 10. After issuance of notices in the contempt petition, the Authorities with a revengeful attitude and only to harass the petitioners have converted the written complaint dated 09.07.2015 into a separate 10 Crime No.181/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the IPC as also Section 66 of the IT Act and the said crime has been registered later on 12.05.2016. The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur vide order dated 04.06.2016. In Crime No.181/2016, the charge-sheet has been submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur and a Criminal Case No.14382/2016 has been registered against the petitioners. 11. Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Md. Zakir Anand Shah and Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel as well as Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, petitioner in person have submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged motivatedly in order to save the private respondent from prosecution under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment and instigation of suicide being given to her husband Late Pankaj Shrivastava. They further submitted that the City Superintendent of Police in earlier enquiry clearly opined that the complaint of the the complainant need not be processed as it is mainly a civil dispute, but yet on the instructions of IGP, the impugned FIR has been lodged which deserves to be reprimanded by this Court. It has been argued that the petitioners have not taken into possession any vehicle or any other article to justify the prosecution in the impugned crime and the complainant has lodged the FIR against the petitioners only due to the reason 11 that the petitioners are Advocates as well as family members of deceased Pankaj Shrivastava and by getting restraining orders, has prevented the complainant to dispose of the joint family property. It has been further argued that the impugned prosecution is a clear abuse of process of law for the reason that gross miscarriage of justice would be caused to the petitioners, if the impugned FIR is allowed to operate against them. It has been contended that no ingredients of Section 498-A of the IPC are present in the instant cases even if the entire complaint/FIR are taken to be true on their face value. It has been further contended that the police have illegally converted the written complaint dated 09.07.2015 into FIR only on 12.05.2016 without any basis and without any proper enquiry. It has been argued that Shri Pushkar Sinha and Shri Pawan Shrivastava have been falsely implicated by the respondents only to wreak vengeance for filing contempt petition and getting interim protection in the prosecution in the earlier Crime No.143/2015 and no ingredients of Sections 417, 467, 471, 120-B, 34 of the IPC are present in the instant case as also no ingredients of Section 66 of the IT Act are attracted in the instant case. 12. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2014) 2 SCC 1, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and others, (2010) 12 SCC 254, 12 State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(3) SCC 334 and Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 to buttress the submissions. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the FIR discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioner and as such, no interference is called for. 14. On the other hand, Ms. Nitu Shrivastava, private respondent No.2 in person has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the petitioner in person and submitted that she got married to Pankaj Shrivastava with love- cum-arrange marriage on 20.04.2008. Her husband before marriage had told to her that he is an illicit/illegal child of Shri Surendra Prasad Shrivastava, as such, he never got love, affection and cooperation from Smt. Meena Shrivastava (wife of Sh. Surendra Prasad Shrivastava). She further submitted that Late Pankaj Shrivastava had refused the demand of heavy dowry of his father and in annoyance, his father had not given the permission for marriage as well as they have not attended the marriage ceremony of them. After one year of marriage, she and her husband decided to go for progeny, but unfortunately in June 2009 she had a fall which cause injury to Uterus resulting in 13 miscarriage and in December 2012, as per directions of Dr. Nalini Madharia of Ashirwad Hospital, Raipur, even the uterus related laparoscopic surgery was also conducted. It has been contended that she was not present at the time of death of her husband at Bilaspur and at that relevant time, she was at Delhi and in that condition, petitioners have started taking advantage of the situation, torturing mentally her husband and started losing his mental balance and during conversation with her, he husband used to weep and stated his feelings of committing suicide. Since the marriage was against the wishes of the father of Late Pankaj Shrivastava and hence, the petitioners started taunting her husband day and night, which he was not able to bear, and in this situation, he used to weep and talked about committing suicide. It has been further contended that Shri Surendra Prasad Shrivastava has brought suits for declaration of assets and permanent injunction against the property of the private respondent and her Late husband. 15. It has been argued that on 15.09.2023, during cross-examination, father of Late Pankaj Shrivastava, namely Shri Surendra Prasad Shrivastava has himself admitted that the he was not in talking terms her Late husband till his death because her husband had married against his wishes. It is amply clear that Shri Surendra Prasad Shrivastava had ended all relation in annoyance with the husband of the private respondent. It has been further argued 14 that the WhatsApp conversation is a forged document and the petitioners are using a forged message as genuine which itself is an offence punishable under Section 471 of the IPC as well as the petitioners have not mentioned the source of WhatsApp message and neither has filed any Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. It has been submitted by her that as per the evidence given by the Station House Officer of Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, WhatsApp was uninstalled on the phone of Late Pankaj Shrivastava which was in custody of Pawan Shrivastava and was seized by the police from his mother Smt. Meena Shrivastava. Since the City Superintendent of Police, Kotwali, Bilaspur had conspired with the petitioners, she has approached Hon. Minister for justice who forwarded her application to the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, upon which an inquiry into the complaint was done by Additional Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, which clearly indicates that the private respondent was falsely implicated in case of abetment of suicide of her husband. Thereafter, the inquiry of which resulted in registration of Crime No.181/2016, Police Station Kotwali, Bilaspur for the offence under Sections 417, 468, 471, 120(B) 34 of IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act against the petitioners. It has been furhter submitted that the petitioners are misguiding the Court to hide their misdeeds and there is no movable or immovable property in the name of her, which belongs to joint property of the family of her husband Late Pankaj 15 Shrivastava. The petitioners are greedy, cunning and of criminal nature, who immediately after the death of her husband and when she was under a shock, started to grab the moveable- immovable property of the illegally in a hasty manner. The allegation of petitioners regarding sale and disposal of joint family property is completely false and the petitioners have given no proof regarding the same. 16. It has been further argued by Ms. Shrivastava that the act of Shri Pushkar Sinha is in clear violation of "Part 6 Rules Governing Advocates, Chapter 2 Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, Section-II Duties to the Client and Para-14 of The Advocates Act 1961", and has clearly committed a misconduct and for the same, direction for penal action against the petitioner to the competent authority be issued in interest of justice. It has been submitted that though, the reports of theft of gold/silver jewelry could not be established because of police inefficiency but the documents which have been used by the petitioners by filing civil suits clearly establish the allegations made by her in FIR dated 28.06.2015. It is still a mystery that how police had registered FIR against unknown accused despite having strong adducing evidence against the petitioners. It has been further submitted that the arrest was made only after the rejection of anticipatory bail of the petitioners, however, they had misuse the position and made undue pressure on police against his arrest by 16 lobbing the Advocates of Bar Associations. Shri Pushkar Sinha and Shri Pawan Shrivastava have misused his possession of being an Advocate created pressure on police by creating a law- and-order situation by misinformation amongst the Lawyers of his false imprisonment. This clearly indicates abuse of power being an Advocate and is in violation of Provisions Advocates Act. Thereafter, the complainant has lodged a complaint regarding the forgery of document against the petitioners to the police, due to which FIR bearing Crime No.181/2016, was registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 468, 471, 120 (B) 34 of IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act after diligent preliminary enquiry and sufficient material evidence against the petitioners. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Rajesh Chetwal v. State vide judgment dated 24.08.2011 in CRL.M.C. No.1656/2011 as well as the judgments relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Aluri Venkata Ramana v. Aluri Thirupathi Rao and others decided on 12.12.2024 in Criminal Appeal arising from the SLP (CRL.) No.9243/2024, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh etc. decided on 10.04.2023 in Criminal Appeal Nos.1025- 1026/2023 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others decided on 13.04.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021, to buttress her submissions. 17 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with both the petitions. 18. The 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 Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not