[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Arun Chandra (Aruna) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15238-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 863 of 2026
1 - Smt. Arun Chandra (Aruna) W/o Late Vasudev Chandra, Aged About
50 Years R/o H. No. 94, Avinash Capital Homes, Saddu Raipur CG
2 - Smt. Harshita Chandra, W/o Bijit Das, Aged About 31 Years R/o
H.No. 94, Avinash Capital Homes, Saddu, Raipur CG
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, PS City
Kotwali, Raipur CG
2 - Smt. Saharteen Bai Chandra W/o Late Mangal Das Chandra, R/o
Vasu Coaching, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, CG
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
02.04.2026
1 Heard Mr. Raja Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners as
well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate,
ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA
appearing for the State/respondent No.1.
2 The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been
preferred by the petitioners with the following prayers :-
"(a) QUASH AND SET ASIDE the FIR No.
0354/2025 dated 22/12/2025 registered at Police
Station City Kotwali, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, for
the alleged offences under Sections 108 and 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Annexure P/1),
and ALL consequential proceedings arising therefrom,
including the investigation currently being undertaken
by Police Station City Kotwali, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh but not limited to any chargesheet,
cognizance order, summons, or trial proceedings; and
(b) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
3 Prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Vasudev Chandra
committed suicide by hanging at his Coaching Centre on the
intervening night of 03-04/12/2025. His body was discovered on
04/12/2025 at approximately 10:30 am. A handwritten document
titled "Nivedan Patra" dated 29/11/2025 was recovered near the
body, in which the deceased attributed blame to the Petitioners,
who are his wife and daughter and one Amit Mahilange for alleged
"extortion" and "conspiracy for property." A pen drive was also
produced by the relatives of the deceased containing a video of
the deceased. The Post-Mortem examination was conducted on
04/12/2025 at 3:45 PM by Dr. S.N. Manjhi (Senior Medical Officer,
Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, J.N.Μ. Medical
College, Raipur) and Dr. Tushar Salvatkar (PG Resident). The
post-mortem opinion conclusively established: "Death was due to
asphyxia as a result of hanging and duration of death is within 24
hours, prior to postmortem examination. Copy of Post Mortem
Report is Annexure P/5. The impugned FIR No. 0354/2025 was
registered on 22/12/2025 i.e. 18 days after the date of death of
deceased at the instance of respondent No.2 Saharteen Bai
Chandra at Police Station, City Kotwali, Raipur, under Sections
108 and 3(5) BNS, 2023. Hence, this petition has been filed by
the petitioner with the aforementioned prayers. It is pertinent to
mention herein that petitioner No.2 Smt. Harshita Chandra havs
already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA
No. 110 of 2026 vide order dated 21.01.2026.
4 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the deceased
committed suicide in the intervening night of 03-04/12/2025 and
the impugned FIR has been registered on 22/12/2025 i.e. after 18
days of the incident, which is fatal to the prosecution's case. He
further submitted that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide,
where the principal act (death) is known to all parties on the very
day of occurrence, an unexplained delay of 18 days in lodging the
FIR raises a strong and irresistible inference that the FIR is an
after thought, lodged after deliberation, consultation and
construction of fabricated narrative. He further submitted that the
alleged suicide note "Nivedan Patra" is dated 28/11/2025 and the
suicide occurred on the intervening night of 03-04/12/2025 i.e.
there is clear gap on 4-5 days and the said gap severs the
immediately required for instigation. He also submitted though
there is allegation of the deceased husband that petitioner No.1
wife is having illicit relation with another person and she used to
extort the deceased for money, whereas the fact of the matter is
that they are living separately since last 10-12 years with no
regular interaction and the petitioner No.1 as well as petitioner
No.2 have already made complaint against the deceased alleging
domestic violation, physical assault, criminal intimidation and
sexual assault and so far as allegation of demand of money is
concerned, the amount was demanded for marriage of petitioner
No.2, who is daughter of the deceased. He also submitted that
the entire FIR proceeds on the basis of a disputed handwritten
note and a pen drive video allegedly made by the deceased.
There is no evidence of any direct act of instigation, harassment,
or provocation immediately preceding the act of suicide. The
alleged financial disputes between the spouses concerning
property and matrimonial finances do not, even at their highest,
constitute abetment of suicide within the meaning of Section 108
BNS.
5 Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the petition is
misconceived and not maintainable. The FIR, though registered
after 18 days, cannot be quashed merely on the ground of delay,
especially where it discloses cognizable offences based on the
suicide note and video, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) 1 SCC 335 . The
allegations prima facie disclose elements of abetment of suicide
under Section 108 BNS, 2023, which require investigation to
determine the role of the petitioners, and the question of
"immediate provocation" or prior disputes is a matter of fact for
investigation, not for pre-trial determination, as reiterated in
Sushil Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2005) 11 SCC 600 . He
also submitted that the petitioners' contentions regarding prior
separation or financial disputes cannot preclude investigation.
6 On a pointed query being asked to learned counsel for the
petitioners as how he is seeking quashment of the impugned FIR
without annexing the alleged suicide note and video produced by
the deceased's relatives, which prima facie disclose cognizable
offences under Section 108 BNS, 2023, he could not give any
satisfactory explanation and only stated that as the charge-sheet
has not been filed he could not file the alleged suicide note.
7 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
material on record, this Court finds that the petitioners are seeking
quashing of FIR alleging abetment of suicide, whereas the
investigation is still at a preliminary stage and no charge sheet
has been filed.
8 The allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose cognizable
offences under Section 108 BNS, 2023, which require proper
investigation. The Court further finds that at this stage, it is not
appropriate to examine the merits or veracity of the allegations, as
the veracity of evidence and the role of the petitioners can only be
determined after completion of the investigation and filing of the
charge sheet.
9 In view of the settled position of law, including the principles laid
down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) 1 SCC 335 and
Sushil Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2005) 11 SCC 600 , the
Court holds that no ground is made out for interference at this
stage.
10 Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
