Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Rashi Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 May, 2025
1/5
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MANPREET
KAUR
Digitally signed by CRMP No. 1557 of 2025
MANPREET KAUR
Date: 2025.05.07
16:55:04 +0530
Smt. Rashi Sharma Versus State Of Chhattisgarh
Order Sheet
07.05.2025 Heard Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned
Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 /
State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
prima facie the requirement of section 420 of I.P.C. is
not fulfilled, as there is no money or any valuable
security under transaction, no cheating has been
done / specially when the respondent No.2 himself
attend the hearing of divorce and visited the
petitioner's earlier matrimonial home to gather her
belongings from Satna (M.P.). The mother- in-law Mrs.
Sunita Sharma in her 161 statement unmasked
everything regarding present offences & admitted that
they know the factum of her earlier marriage hence the
offence under Section 420 is not made out. It is very
vehemently submitted that it is not a case of no
knowledge of fact of first marriage of petitioner & its
divorce as unmasked by her. Thus the entire charge-
sheet surfers with great flaws of law & facts and hence
deserves to be quashed. The learned trial Court has
not followed the proper process of law as it has not
taking or recording any statements of any of the party,
and directly took cognizance upon the complaint, that
is against the principals laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in several judgments like 'Devarapalli
Lakshminarayana Reddy And Others Versus V.
Narayana Reddy And Others' (1976) 3 SCC 252 ,
which make grave flaw in the order dated 24-07-2024,
thus it deserves to be set aside. It is further courtly
submitted that in the present circumstances even if
they were taken as it is, it wouldn't fall within the ambit
of section 420 of I.P.C. as the respondent No. 2 from
the beginning knows that the petitioner is a derelict
woman and the respondent No. 2 himself
accompanied her in every date of her divorce case
before family court at Bilaspur because till then the
Respondent No. 2 already married with the petitioner,
thus respondent No. 2 could not take advantage of this
situation of the petitioner, thus also the order deserves
to be set aside. The learned trial Court ought to have
called the report from the police that might clear that
the respondent No. 2 has presented two applications
of 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and first application was withdrawn
by him without any liberty. Thus the charg-sheet suffers
with flaws and deserves to be quash. The factum of
petitioners' earlier marriage was not suppressed by the
petitioner as mentioned in the 161 statement of
Mother-In-Law, thus the rider of Section 198 would
prevail and thus no court could take cognizance to the
case, it is further submitted that it ought to have been
seen before passing the orders dated 24-07-2024 by
the learned J.M.FC. Raipur. Thus the order dated 24-
07-2024 and the entire Charge-Sheet suffers with
great illegality which deserves to be quashed.
In view of the above, issue notice to the
respondent No.2 by ordinary post as well as registered
post.
Learned State counsel appears and accepts
notice on behalf of respondent No.1, therefore,
issuance of notice to it, is dispensed with.
Process Fee be paid within a week only for
respondent No.2.
Notice be made returnable in four weeks.
Two weeks' time is granted to the learned State
counsel as well as respondent No.2 to file their reply-
affidavit and thereafter, two weeks' time is granted to
the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder
affidavit.
List the matter thereafter.
Till then, further proceedings against the
petitioner, namely, Smt. Rashi Sharma in Criminal
Case No.800/2025 in pursuance to the charge-sheet
against FIR bearing Crime No. 316/2024 registered
at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur,
District- Raipur (C.G.) for offence under Sections
420 and 494 of the IPC, shall remain stayed, subject
to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in
the investigation.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet
