Cognizable Offence Clearly Disclosed | Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Under Section 498-A Saying It Cannot Be Said That No Offence Is Made Out
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru has dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR filed under Sections 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the allegations in the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and therefore did not merit intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 CrPC. The Bench directed that the investigation must proceed as per law and concluded that no exceptional circumstance existed to warrant quashing of proceedings at the preliminary stage.
The dispute arose out of a matrimonial relationship solemnized on 19.02.2015 in accordance with Muslim rites and rituals. The complainant, who was married to the petitioner, alleged that shortly after marriage, she was subjected to harassment and was forced to leave her matrimonial home. The couple had two children. The complainant claimed that her husband had an illicit relationship with another woman and had distanced himself from the marital relationship, especially during his overseas employment.
During this time, the complainant’s husband’s cousin, who lived adjacent to their house, developed a friendship with her. According to the complaint, this relationship later became romantic. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and his cousin began threatening her with the dissemination of obscene material, thereby causing significant mental harassment. She filed an FIR at Sirgitti Police Station, District Bilaspur, which was registered as Crime No. 253 of 2024 under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the said FIR, claiming that the allegations were exaggerated, baseless, and lodged with the intention to harass him. He contended that the FIR contained vague and general allegations with no specific overt act attributed to him.
The petitioner submitted that he was employed abroad and had returned to India periodically due to family obligations, including medical treatment and the eventual death of his father. According to the petitioner, the complainant initiated separation through a message and admitted her relationship with the co-accused. He further submitted that she had posted intimate photographs on social media, which allegedly were later circulated within the family. He claimed that these developments were part of a scheme to malign him and sought the Court's intervention to quash the FIR.
On the other hand, the State opposed the petition, submitting that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and required investigation. Counsel for the complainant also argued that the allegations were serious and related to cruelty, and hence could not be decided at this stage. It was also submitted that factual disputes raised by the petitioner were beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction.
Pursuant to a prior direction of the Court, both parties were referred to mediation; however, the mediation process failed as neither party was willing to settle the matter amicably.
The Bench began by upholding the settled legal principles surrounding the quashing of FIRs and criminal proceedings. “The jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases,” the Court stated. It added that courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigation of cognizable offences.
Referring to established precedent, the Court cited the landmark decision in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, observing: “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,” such cases may warrant quashing.
The Court noted that none of the exceptional circumstances outlined in Bhajan Lal were present in the current matter. Further relying on judgments such as Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd., the Bench recorded that even if the complaint appears improbable, it should not be quashed if a prima facie offence is made out.
Quoting Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the Court recorded: “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 Bench further referred to State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, stating that: “It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed.”
In light of the above, the Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding factual disputes, including the complainant's conduct and social media postings, could not be adjudicated within the writ jurisdiction.
“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 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.”
The Bench concluded that a prima facie case had been disclosed, and there was no bar to investigation.
The Court examined the allegations stated in the FIR and determined that the complainant had clearly alleged incidents of harassment, both physical and mental, within the marital relationship. It recorded that the allegations included attempts to throw her out of the house and intimidation involving threats of circulating obscene material.
In conclusion, the Court stated: “It cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, therefore, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the impugned FIR.”
The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ali Afzal Mirza, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate, Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Case Title: XXXX v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:24231-DB
Case Number: WPCR No. 137 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
[Read/Download order]
