Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.01.31 14:25:34 +0530 2025:CGHC:5250-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3057 of 2024 1 - Suryakant Jatwar S/o Anandram Jatwar Aged About 30 Years Resident of Gali No. 1 Aadarsh Nagar Colony Mova Saddu, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anandram Jatwar S/o Lt. Salikram Jatwar Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Gali No. 1 Aadarsh Nagar Colony Mova Saddu, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ramkunwar Jatwar W/o Anandram Jatwar Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Gali No. 1 Aadarsh Nagar Colony Mova Saddu, Raipur Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officers, P.S. Bilaigarh District Sarangarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Neha Jatwar W/o Suryakant Jatwar Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Mova Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners For State For Respondent No.2 : : : Shri Harshal Chouhan, Advocate. Shri Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Shri Umesh Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 29.01.2025. Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR/Crime No.216/2024 registered against the petitioners at Police Station, Bilaigarh, Thana Sarangarh and also to quash the subsequent proceedings in Criminal
Legal Reasoning
Case No.558 of 2024 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaigarh (in short, JMFC). 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner No. 1 is the 2 husband of the respondent No.2/complainant whose marriage was solemnized in the year, 2015 as per their rites and rituals. The petitioner No. 2 & 3 are father in law and mother-in-law of the complainant. It is alleged that after some time of marriage, the petitioners started harassing the complainant as her husband was having illicit relationship with some other lady. She was compelled to left her matrimonial house on account of cruelty and harassment meted out by the petitioners and started living in her parents house from 09.06.2024. It is alleged that on 23.07.2024 at about 9 PM her husband forcibly entered into her parental house and beaten her. She made a written complaint. On the basis of said complaint, the Police registered an FIR of Crime No.216/2024 for the offence under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2) of BNS was filed at Police Station Bilaigarh, and after due investigation charge sheet has been filed before the JMFC, Bilaigarh where Criminal Case No.558 of 2024 is pending consideration. 3
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the complainant herself left the matrimonial without any sufficient reason as she was not interested to reside with the petitioners. She raised allegations which are trivial in nature and the same are insufficient to support the allegation of harassment and cruelty. The complainant herself was having extra marital affair with someone and she was not interested to reside with the petitioners. Therefore, FIR No.216/2024 registered at Police Station Bilaigarh and the entire charge sheet filed against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences and consequential proceedings of 3 Criminal Case No.558 of 2024 pending before JMFC, Bilaigarh, may be quashed. 4 He would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 1 , Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another 2 , Swapnil v. State of Madhya Pradesh 3 , Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another4 (Para-24), Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 5 , Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others 6 and Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh 7 . 5 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent/State, would submit that after due investigation the petitioners have been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and prima-facie material collected during investigation are sufficient to put the petitioners at trial and considering the material available on record, it cannot be held that no prima-facie case against the petitioners for standing trial is made out. He would further submit that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.,2023 extremely limited as FIR and charge- sheet cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient evidence available on record to put the accused persons to trial. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Taramani Parakh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others8 to buttress his 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (2012) 10 SCC 741