1

2026:CGHC:4380-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 2945 of 2025

Deepika Tiwari W/o Shri Deepak Tiwari Aged About 45 Years D/o Late

Shri Murli Manohar Mishra , R/o H. No. H5/2, Reshan Colony, Shriram

Nagar, Kanker, District- North Bastar (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate, District-

Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.)

2 - Station House Officer Through- Police Station- Kasdol, Balodabazar-

Bhatapara (C.G.)

3 - Manish Mishra S/o Late Shri Murli Manihar Mishra Aged About 51

Years R/o Mahatma Gandhi Ward, Brahmanpara, Kasdol, District-

Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Ramcharan Sahu, Advocate and Mr.

Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

27.01.2026

2

1.Heard Mr. Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also

heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing

for respondents No.1 & 2/State and Mr. Ramcharan Sahu, learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

2.The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer:

“It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble court may

kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set aside

the impugned F.I.R. No. 0325/2025 dated

08.05.2025 lodged at Police Station Kasdol,

Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) (ANNEXURE A/1)

and the Chargesheet No. 428/2025 dated

25.07.2025 under section 115(2), 296, 351(3) of

The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and to set aside

the Taking Cognizance Order dated 26.07.2025

passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Kasdol District- Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.)

bearing Criminal Case No. 1514/2025

(ANNEXURE A/2) in the ends of justice.”

3.Prosecution story in brief is that the complainant Manish Kumar

Mishra alleged that on 08.05.2025 at about 1:30 PM, his wife

Deepshikha Mishra found a love letter in the courtyard of their

house, purportedly written by the daughter of the applicant,

namely Ananya Tiwari, whereafter the complainant sent the said

letter through his servant to his real sister, the applicant herein.

Upon receipt of the same at about 9:45 PM, the applicant

allegedly rushed to the complainant’s house, denied authorship of

the letter by her daughter, accused the complainant of attempting

3

to defame her family, and during the ensuing altercation allegedly

abused, threatened and assaulted the complainant by hand and

fist and attempted to choke him, causing simple injuries on his

right hand and cheek, leading to the lodging of the impugned FIR.

The applicant contends that the allegations are false, frivolous

and malicious, lodged solely to harass her and tarnish her social

reputation, particularly in view of the admitted fact that the parties

are real brother and sister and are embroiled in a long-standing

civil dispute relating to family property pending as Civil Case No.

7A/2021 before the Court of 1st District Judge, Baloda Bazar. It is

further asserted that the applicant is a civil servant working as

Supervisor under the Department of Women and Child

Development at Kasdol and has been falsely implicated due to the

said property dispute. It is specifically urged that the offence

under Section 296 BNS is not made out as the FIR itself discloses

that the alleged incident occurred inside the private residence of

the complainant and not in any public place, and therefore, in the

backdrop of the civil dispute and absence of essential ingredients

of the alleged offences, the impugned FIR and chargesheet

deserve to be quashed at the threshold.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR

dated 08.05.2025 and the consequential charge-sheet dated

25.07.2025 are wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts

and material available on record and, therefore, liable to be

quashed, as the allegations contained therein are absurd,

4

inherently improbable and do not disclose any sufficient ground to

proceed against the applicant. It is contended that the complaint

has been lodged on false, fabricated and concocted allegations

with the sole intention of tarnishing the reputation and social

standing of the applicant, who is a law-abiding government

servant working as Supervisor at Kasdol under the Department of

Women and Child Development. It is further submitted that the

complainant and the applicant are real brother and sister and are

embroiled in a long-standing family property dispute, which is

pending adjudication before the Court of the First District Judge,

Baloda Bazar as Civil Case No. 7-A/2021, and that the present

FIR has been maliciously instituted only to exert undue pressure

upon the applicant in the said civil litigation and to cause her

mental as well as professional harassment. Learned counsel

further argues that the essential ingredients of the offences

alleged, particularly under Section 296 of the BNS, 2023, are

conspicuously absent, inasmuch as the said provision applies

only to acts committed in a public place, whereas the FIR itself

admits that the alleged incident took place inside the private

residence of the complainant, thereby rendering the invocation of

Section 296 BNS manifestly erroneous and reflective of non-

application of mind by the investigating agency. It is thus urged

that even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face

value and accepted in their entirety, no prima facie offence under

Sections 115(2), 296 or 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 is made out

5

against the petitioner, and continuation of the criminal

proceedings would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law,

warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court.

5.Learned State counsel submits that as per the prosecution case,

on 08.05.2025 at about 1:03 PM the wife of the complainant,

namely Deepshikha Mishra, found a love letter in the courtyard of

her house allegedly written by the daughter of the applicant,

whereupon the applicant rushed to the complainant’s house,

denied the said allegation and, during the ensuing altercation,

allegedly abused, threatened and assaulted the complainant with

hands and fists and attempted to choke him, causing simple

injuries on his right hand and right cheek, pursuant to which the

complainant lodged the FIR at about 1:30 PM, while the applicant

also lodged an NCR later in the evening as a counterblast. It is

submitted that after registration of the FIR, the investigating

agency duly recorded the statements of witnesses, seized

relevant documents and CCTV footage related to the incident,

and upon completion of investigation filed the charge-sheet before

the competent Court, where the trial is presently pending. Learned

State counsel contends that at this stage interference by this

Hon’ble Court would be unwarranted, as the FIR and charge-

sheet are meant only to set the criminal law in motion and an FIR

need not contain an exhaustive narration of all facts, which are to

be unfolded during trial; premature quashment would result in

grave injustice before the evidence is duly appreciated. Reliance

6

is placed on the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, to submit that

in the absence of patent illegality or arbitrariness, the inherent

jurisdiction ought not to be exercised, and that even alleged mala

fides of the complainant do not by themselves vitiate an otherwise

sustainable prosecution. It is further submitted that prima facie

sufficient material exists on record to justify registration of the FIR

and filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioner has an efficacious

alternative remedy of seeking discharge before the learned Trial

Court, and therefore, the present petition being devoid of merit

deserves to be dismissed at the threshold

6.Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the petition

filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR No. 325/2025

dated 08.05.2025 and the consequent criminal proceedings is

wholly baseless and liable to be dismissed, as the said FIR was

lodged by respondent No. 3 Manish Mishra on the very date of

occurrence, narrating a clear and cogent account of the incident

wherein his wife Smt. Deepshikha Mishra found a love letter in the

courtyard of their house allegedly written by the daughter of the

petitioner, which, upon being conveyed to the petitioner, led to the

petitioner visiting the complainant’s house at about 9:45 PM and

abusing him in filthy language, threatening to kill him, assaulting

him with fists and attempting to strangulate him, causing injuries

on his right hand and right cheek, an incident witnessed by his

wife and duly captured in the CCTV footage installed at his

7

residence. It is submitted that on the basis of the said complaint,

the police registered the FIR, medically examined the injured

complainant, prepared the spot map, seized the CCTV footage in

the presence of witnesses, recorded the statements of

eyewitnesses including Smt. Deepshikha Mishra and Aher Singh

Kshatriya, and upon a thorough and fair investigation, found prima

facie material establishing the commission of offences under

Sections 296, 351(3) and 115(2) of the BNS, 2023, leading to

filing of the charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Kasdol in Criminal Case No. 1514/2025.

7.Learned counsel vehemently denies the petitioner’s assertion of

any long-standing property dispute between the parties and

submits that the civil plaint relied upon by the petitioner itself

demonstrates that no such dispute exists between the applicant

and respondent No. 3, and that the plea of false implication on

account of property dispute is a concocted defence raised only to

evade trial. It is further contended that the petitioner’s status as a

public servant does not grant her any immunity from criminal

prosecution, particularly when there exists direct eyewitness

testimony and electronic evidence supporting the prosecution

case, and that the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations can

only be tested during a full-fledged trial. It is therefore submitted

that prima facie offences are clearly made out against the

applicant, the application for quashment has been filed on false

and fabricated grounds to avoid facing trial, and if allowed, would

8

result in grave miscarriage of justice to respondent No. 3, hence

the petition deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice.

8.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents appended with this petition.

9.The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others

v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the

principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first

information report and it has been held that such power can be

exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or

otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the

report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such

power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the

CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: -

“102.In the backdrop of the interpretation of the

various relevant provisions of the Code under

Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated

by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the

exercise of the extraordinary power under Article

226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of

the Code which we have extracted and reproduced

above, we give the following categories of cases by

way of illustration wherein such power could be

exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of

any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,

though it may not be possible to lay down any

precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised

and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to

give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases

wherein such power should be exercised.

9

(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 do not prima facie constitute

any offence or make out a case against the

accused.

(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 155(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 ever reach a just conclusion that

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.

10

(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.

103.We also give a note of caution to the effect

that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding

should be exercised very sparingly and with

circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare

cases; that the court will not be justified in

embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or

genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made

in the FIR or the complaint and that the

extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an

arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to

its whim or caprice.”

10.The Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma and

others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others,

(2016) 9 SCC 1

held as under:-

“35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section

482 of the Code, a similar view has been taken by a

Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Thapar and others

vs. Madan Kal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was

held as under:-

“29. The issue being examined in the instant

case is the jurisdiction of the High Court

under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to

quash the initiation of the prosecution

against an accused at the stage of issuing

process, or at the stage of committal, or even

at the stage of framing of charges. These are

all stages before the commencement of the

actual trial. The same parameters would

11

naturally be available for later stages as well.

The power vested in the High Court under

Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to

hereinabove, would have far-reaching

consequences inasmuch as it would negate

the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without

allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead

evidence. Such a determination must always

be rendered with caution, care and

circumspection. To invoke its inherent

jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High

Court has to be fully satisfied that the

material produced by the accused is such

that would lead to the conclusion that

his/their defence is based on sound,

reasonable, and indubitable facts; the

material produced is such as would rule out

and displace the assertions contained in the

charges levelled against the accused; and

the material produced is such as would

clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the

allegations contained in the accusations

levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It

should be sufficient to rule out, reject and

discard the accusations levelled by the

prosecution/complainant, without the

necessity of recording any evidence. For this

the material relied upon by the defence

should not have been refuted, or

alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted,

being material of sterling and impeccable

quality. The material relied upon by the

accused should be such as would persuade

12

a reasonable person to dismiss and

condemn the actual basis of the accusations

as false. In such a situation, the judicial

conscience of the High Court would

persuade it to exercise its power under

Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal

proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of

process of the court, and secure the ends of

justice.

30. Based on the factors canvassed in the

foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate

the following steps to determine the veracity

of a prayer for quashment raised by an

accused by invoking the power vested in the

High Court under Section 482 CrPC:

30.1. Step one: whether the material relied

upon by the accused is sound, reasonable,

and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling

and impeccable quality?

30.2. Step two: whether the material relied

upon by the accused would rule out the

assertions contained in the charges levelled

against the accused i.e. the material is

sufficient to reject and overrule the factual

assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the

material is such as would persuade a

reasonable person to dismiss and condemn

the factual basis of the accusations as false?

30.3. Step three: whether the material relied

upon by the accused has not been refuted by

the prosecution/complainant; and/or the

13

material is such that it cannot be justifiably

refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the

trial would result in an abuse of process of

the court, and would not serve the ends of

justice?

30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the

affirmative, the judicial conscience of the

High Court should persuade it to quash such

criminal proceedings in exercise of power

vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such

exercise of power, besides doing justice to

the accused, would save precious court time,

which would otherwise be wasted in holding

such a trial (as well as proceedings arisingt

therefrom) specially when it is clear that the

same would not conclude in the conviction of

the accused.”

11.Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon

careful perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet and the material placed

on record, this Court finds that the continuation of the impugned

criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of

law. Even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face

value and accepted in their entirety, the essential ingredients of

the offences alleged under Sections 115(2), 296 and 351(3) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are not prima facie made out

against the petitioner. In particular, Section 296 BNS is attracted

only when the alleged act is committed in a “public place”,

14

whereas the FIR itself unequivocally discloses that the alleged

incident occurred within the private residence of the complainant,

thereby taking the case outside the ambit of the said provision.

The material on record further reflects that the parties are closely

related and that the criminal proceedings have emanated from an

inter se family dispute, which has given rise to civil litigation

already pending before the competent civil court, and the criminal

law has been set in motion to settle scores and exert pressure

rather than to redress a genuine criminal wrong. This Court is also

of the view that the allegations are predominantly personal in

nature, lack independent corroboration of a grave or serious

offence, and do not disclose any offence of such magnitude

warranting continuation of criminal prosecution.

12.In view of the settled principles governing exercise of inherent

jurisdiction, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

matter of Bhajan Lal (supra) and other authoritative

pronouncements, this Court is satisfied that the present case

squarely falls within the category where the criminal proceedings

are manifestly attended with mala fide and are instituted with an

ulterior motive. Consequently, allowing the prosecution to proceed

would result in unnecessary harassment of the applicant and

miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and

FIR No. 0325/2025 dated 08.05.2025 registered at Police Station

Kasdol, District Balodabazar–Bhatapara (C.G.) and the

consequential Charge-sheet No. 428/2025 dated 25.07.2025,

15

along with all proceedings arising therefrom in Criminal Case No.

1514/2025 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Kasdol, are hereby quashed.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Manpreet