Aanchal Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 2022 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Aanchal Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 April, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                      1




                                                                  2026:CGHC:18651-DB
                                                                              NAFR
                            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                           CRMP No. 705 of 2026


                   Aanchal Sharma W/o Saikat Sharma Aged About 31 Years R/o D/802,
                   Millennium Chowk, Sundar Nagar, P.S. Dd Nagar And Distt. Raipur
MANPREET
KAUR               (C.G.)
Digitally signed
by MANPREET


                                                                       --- Petitioner(s)
KAUR
Date: 2026.04.23
17:48:16 +0530




                                                   versus


                   1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (Sho) P.S.
                   Kanker, Distt. Kanker, (C.G.)
                   2 - Saikat Sharma S/o Shiv Kumar Sharma Aged About 34 Years R/o
                   Tikrapara, P.S. Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C.G.)
                                                                     --- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. G.A. and Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate

1 - Saket Sharma S/o Shiv Kuamr Sharma Aged About 34 Years R/o 902/k/2, Gaya Nagar, Ward No. 4, Durg Tehsil And District- Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Uttara Devi Sharma W/o Shiv Kumar Sharma Aged About 63 Years R/o 902/k/2, Gaya Nagar, Ward No. 4, Durg Tehsil And District- Durg Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Kanker, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Anchal Sharma W/o Saket Sharma Aged About 31 Years R/o D-802, Millenium Chowk, Sundar Nagar, Police Station-D.D. Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Complainant In The Instant Crime)

--- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

23.04.2026

1. Heard Pragalbha Sharma and Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned

counsel for respective petitioners. Also heard Ms. Vaishali Mahilong,

learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondent / State

and Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.

2. As per the mediation report dated 06.04.2026, the mediation

between the parties has failed.

3. The brief facts, emerging collectively from both the petitions,

reveal that the marriage between the husband/Saket Sharma and the

wife/Smt. Anchal Sharma was solemnized on 07.06.2023 at Kumhari,

District- Durg, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, and the

mother of the husband is also involved in the dispute. Soon after the

marriage, serious matrimonial discord arose between the parties, with

each side levelling allegations of cruelty, harassment, and misbehavior

against the other. While the wife alleges that she was subjected to

physical and mental cruelty by the husband and his family members,

leading to the lodging of FIR No. 487/2023 dated 08.12.2023 at Police

Station Kanker against the husband, the husband, on the other hand,

asserts that the wife was quarrelsome from the very inception of

marriage, frequently leaving the matrimonial home, raising repeated

monetary demands, and even subjecting him to physical assault,

coupled with threats to implicate him and his family in false cases by

using the alleged influence of her father in the police department. It is

borne out from the record that the said earlier criminal case culminated

in a compromise between the parties, resulting in acquittal of the

husband on 11.06.2025, however, the relationship did not improve and

the parties continued to live separately. Thereafter, the husband

instituted divorce proceedings under Section 13(1) of the Hindu

Marriage Act before the Family Court at Durg on 02.02.2026 and also

submitted a prior representation to the police authorities apprehending

false implication. The dispute escalated on 06.02.2026, when the wife

travelled to Kanker and an altercation took place between the parties,

resulting in registration of cross FIRs on the same day FIR No. 53/2026

at the instance of the wife against the husband and his mother, and FIR

No. 54/2026 at the instance of the husband against the wife, both under

the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The material on record

thus reflects that both FIRs arise out of the same incident and

represent a case of allegations and counter-allegations between

estranged spouses, with parallel civil proceedings, including divorce

and maintenance cases, also pending between them.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in CRMP No. 705/2026

submits that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR as well as in

the statement of the complainant (respondent No. 2) are wholly vague,

general, and omnibus in nature, lacking any specific attribution of role

or overt act to the petitioner, and thus fail to disclose the commission of

any cognizable offence at the very outset. It is contended that the

petitioner's matrimonial life has been consistently marred by cruelty,

harassment, and ill-treatment at the hands of respondent No. 2 and his

family members, however, despite such adverse circumstances, the

petitioner made sincere efforts to preserve the marital relationship and

continued to cohabit in the hope of reconciliation, which ultimately

never materialized. It is further submitted that the impugned FIR is a

clear manifestation of mala fide intent and constitutes a retaliatory

counterblast, inasmuch as the respondents had earlier induced the

petitioner to compound FIR No. 487/2023 by extending false

assurances of reconciliation, thereby securing acquittal at an advanced

stage of trial, and having achieved such exoneration, have now

resorted to misuse of the criminal justice system by lodging the present

false FIR to harass and victimise the petitioner. It is argued that

respondent No. 2 is attempting to overshadow and neutralize his own

antecedents of domestic violence, for which he had been previously

charge-sheeted in the earlier FIR, by instituting the present

proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that, being aggrieved by

the false implication and continued harassment, the petitioner was

constrained to submit a detailed representation before the Director

General of Police, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh), highlighting that the FIR

was registered mechanically by the Station House Officer without any

preliminary inquiry or due application of mind. It is also pointed out that

the petitioner is a meritorious student pursuing M.Sc. (4th Semester)

and is presently undergoing training/internship with the National

Informatics Centre (NIC) at Mantralaya, Raipur, and the institution of

the impugned FIR is a calculated attempt to tarnish her reputation and

irreparably damage her academic and professional prospects. It is thus

contended that the allegations are inherently improbable, arise out of

matrimonial discord, and have been given a criminal colour solely with

an oblique motive. In such circumstances, permitting the investigation

to continue in FIR No. 54/2026 would result in grave miscarriage of

justice and would amount to abuse of the process of law. The

continuation of such proceedings, it is submitted, not only lacks legal

foundation but also infringes the petitioner's fundamental rights

guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed

in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent misuse of the

criminal process.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners in CRMP No. 1026/2026 submits

that the present FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings are

wholly unsustainable in law and deserve to be quashed, as the

petitioners have been falsely implicated on the basis of vague,

omnibus, and inherently improbable allegations, which are nothing but

an afterthought devised to harass and victimise them. It is contended

that the sequence of events clearly demonstrates mala fide intent on

the part of respondent No. 2, inasmuch as petitioner No. 1 had already

instituted divorce proceedings at Durg and had also approached the

police authorities with a prior complaint dated 02.02.2026. Thereafter,

on 06.02.2026, the complainant admittedly travelled from Raipur to

Kanker not for any bona fide purpose but to threaten, abuse, and

assault the petitioners, regarding which the petitioners had already

submitted a complaint to the police authorities. It is thus urged that the

impugned FIR has been registered mechanically, without due

application of mind and in complete disregard of the material on record,

as even a bare reading of the FIR does not prima facie disclose the

commission of any cognizable offence against the petitioners. Learned

counsel further submits that it is a settled principle of law that mere

reproduction of statutory language or bald allegations, without specific

particulars regarding the role of each accused, cannot constitute a valid

criminal prosecution, and in the present case, no specific overt act has

been attributed to either of the petitioners. It is further contended that

the complainant had voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home and

had been residing with her parents for nearly two years, having taken

all her belongings including stridhan, thereby falsifying any allegation of

harassment or coercion. It is also pointed out that the complainant has

a history of lodging false complaints, and on an earlier occasion had

assaulted petitioner No. 1 with a sharp object, however, despite the

petitioner's complaint, only a report under Section 155 CrPC was

registered, whereas, under the influence of her father, who is in the

police department, an FIR under Sections 294 and 323 IPC was

registered against petitioner No. 1, demonstrating continuous misuse of

the criminal machinery to harass the petitioners. It is further submitted

that the present case is a classic instance of malicious prosecution,

instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance upon the

petitioners, particularly after initiation of divorce proceedings by

petitioner No. 1, and the fact that a cross FIR bearing Crime No.

54/2026 has already been registered at Police Station Kanker under

Sections 115(2), 296, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

further substantiates that the dispute is mutual and the present FIR is a

retaliatory measure. It is urged that continuation of such proceedings

would cause irreparable loss, injury, and undue harassment to the

petitioners, who are innocent, and would amount to a gross abuse of

the process of law. Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at their

face value in entirety, no offence is made out against the petitioners, as

the allegations are absurd, inherently improbable, and devoid of any

specific attribution, such that no prudent person can reach a conclusion

that sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against them. Accordingly, it

is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the

impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings in order to secure the

ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that

considering the material available on record, it cannot be held that no

prima facie case against the petitioners. He would further submit that

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') is extremely limited as FIR

cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient material

available on record.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered

their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the

records with utmost circumspection.

8. Upon a careful and circumspect evaluation of the rival

submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as well as

the material available on record, this Court finds that the present matter

arises out of a matrimonial discord which has admittedly resulted in

registration of cross FIRs between the husband and the wife on the

same date i.e. 06.02.2026. It is evident that both FIR No. 53/2026 and

FIR No. 54/2026 emanate from the same incident and constitute

versions and counter-versions of the same occurrence. The record

further reflects that prior to the said incident, there existed a long-

standing matrimonial dispute between the parties, including earlier

criminal proceedings bearing FIR No. 487/2023 which culminated in

compromise and acquittal, followed by institution of divorce

proceedings by the husband. Thus, the genesis of the present criminal

litigation is deeply rooted in personal and matrimonial differences rather

than any independent criminal intent.

9. It is a settled principle of law that where the allegations made in

the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do

not prima facie constitute the ingredients of any cognizable offence, or

where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and

has been instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, the

same is liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In the

present case, this Court finds that the allegations in both the FIRs are

largely omnibus, general, and bereft of specific particulars as to the role

played by each accused. The dispute appears to be a fallout of strained

matrimonial relations, where both parties have levelled allegations

against each other in close proximity of time.

10. This Court is also cognizant of the fact that criminal law cannot be

permitted to be used as an instrument of harassment or for settling

personal scores arising out of matrimonial discord. The existence of

cross cases, coupled with prior litigations and the sequence of events

leading to the registration of FIRs on the same day, clearly indicates

that the criminal proceedings have been set in motion as a counterblast

to each other's actions. Continuation of such proceedings, in the

considered opinion of this Court, would not serve the ends of justice

and would rather amount to abuse of the process of law.

11. Furthermore, no specific overt act has been attributed with clarity

so as to satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged under

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The allegations, even if taken at their

highest, appear to be exaggerated and inherently improbable in the

backdrop of the admitted matrimonial dispute between the parties. The

possibility of conviction in such circumstances appears to be remote

and bleak.

12. In view of the foregoing analysis, and considering the totality of

circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit

case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to

prevent abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice.

13. Accordingly, both the petitions deserve to be and are hereby

allowed. The impugned FIRs bearing Crime No. 53/2026 and Crime

No. 54/2026 registered at Police Station- Kanker, along with all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.

14. The petitions stand allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to

costs.

                          Sd/-                                  Sd/-
               (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                   (Ramesh Sinha)
                         Judge                              Chief Justice




Manpreet