[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Dinesh Sahu vs Smt. Anju Sahu on 27 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:10342
NAFR
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
Digitally HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
signed by
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
CRMP No. 1183 of 2025
Dinesh Sahu S/o Late S.R. Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o 62/6-A, Maitri
Nagar, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Smt. Anju Sahu W/o Dinesh Sahu, D/o Ajeet Ram Sahu Aged About 38
Years R/o Sundar Nagar Kohka, Police Station- Supela Bhilai, District- Durg
(C.G.)
2 - Jamaluddin S/o Jalaluddin, Aged About 40 Years R/o Takiyapara, Durg,
Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Durg (C.G.), C/o Superintendent of
Police, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)
3 - Gupteshwar Nishad S/o Shatrudhn Lal Nishad Aged About 40 Years R/o
Kokdi, Police Station- Utai, District- Durg (C.G.), C/o Superintendent of
Police, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)
4 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Durg, District- Durg
(C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. Ritika Dubey, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
27.02.2026
1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneras well as
Ms. Ritika Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the
State/respondent No.4.
2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order
dated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned Revisional Court, arising out
of the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court,
whereby the application preferred by the petitioner seeking
registration of the case under the aforementioned sections of offences
against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has been rejected, and has prayed for
quashment of the said impugned orders and for a direction to the
learned Trial Court to register the case, in the interest of justice.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
'CrPC') before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg,
District Durg (C.G.), stating that he is working as a journalist in a local
daily newspaper and that respondent No.1, his legally wedded wife,
solemnized marriage with him on 06.05.2018 at Sundar Nagar,
Kohka, Bhilai, is residing separately at her parental home. It is alleged
that after marriage respondent No.1 used to harass the petitioner and
his family members over trivial issues and, on 27.02.2021, left the
matrimonial home threatening to falsely implicate him and his family in
criminal cases. Thereafter, on 13.09.2021 at about 3:00 PM,
respondent No.1 allegedly broke open the lock and forcibly entered
the petitioner's house, and despite his complaint to the concerned
Police Station, no FIR was registered. It is further alleged that in the
intervening night of 13/14.09.2021 at about 3:30 AM, respondent No.1
called Dial 112 and came along with respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are
police personnel allegedly known to her, and forcibly entered the
petitioner's house situated at 62/6-A, Maitri Nagar, Risali, Bhilai;
respondent Nos.2 and 3 allegedly assaulted the petitioner, causing
grievous injury to his left eye, and respondent No.1, in collusion with
them, attacked him with a rod on his head, causing serious injuries,
and while leaving, respondent No.2 allegedly extended threats. It is
further the case of the petitioner that he thereafter started residing at
his sister Dr. Suman Sahu's house and submitted complaints to the
Police Station as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Durg, but no
action was taken, compelling him to file an application under Section
156(3) CrPC seeking registration of offences under Sections 294,
506, 323, 324, 325, 307, 452 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code along
with supporting documents; however, the learned Trial Court, after
recording preliminary evidence in MJC Criminal/15030/2022,
dismissed the application by order dated 05.12.2023 holding that the
material on record was insufficient for directing registration of the case,
and the revision petition preferred thereagainst, being Criminal
Revision No.45/2024, was also dismissed by the learned Revisional
Court affirming the said order, hence the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders
passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Revisional
Court are wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles
governing exercise of jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. It is contended that both the Courts below have
failed to appreciate that the complaint of the petitioner clearly
discloses commission of cognizable offences and was duly supported
by medical documents, photographs of injuries and contemporaneous
complaints made to the Police Station and the Superintendent of
Police. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court that no
sufficient material or medical evidence was produced is factually
incorrect, inasmuch as the MLC dated 14.09.2021 as well as
subsequent medical papers dated 16.09.2021 were placed on record,
but have not been properly considered. It is further submitted that the
Courts below erred in ignoring the fact that two distinct incidents
occurred; first on 13.09.2021 at about 3:00 PM and second during the
intervening night of 13/14.09.2021 between 3:00 AM to 5:00 AM; and
misread the complaint by treating it as inconsistent, thereby resulting
in grave miscarriage of justice.
5. It is further submitted that the preliminary evidence, including
photographs of the injured petitioner and supporting medical records,
has not been discussed at all in the impugned orders. The learned
counsel contends that the Family Court proceedings between the
petitioner and respondent No.1, including the application under
Section 125 CrPC and related order-sheets, were also placed on
record to demonstrate the background of animosity, yet the same
have been completely overlooked. It is argued that the petitioner,
being a layperson and not a legal expert, may not have drafted the
complaint with technical precision, but the substance of the allegations
clearly makes out cognizable offences warranting registration of an
FIR. The mechanical approach adopted by the Courts below in
dismissing the application without proper analysis of the material
amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in them.
6. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is suffering from a
serious medical condition, namely Cerebral Venous Thrombosis
(CVT), and the assault allegedly committed during the intervening
night of 13/14.09.2021 aggravated his pre-existing condition, a
relevant fact supported by medical documents which has not been
adverted to by the Courts below. It is contended that respondent
Nos.2 and 3 being police personnel, no effective action was taken by
the local police authorities, thereby compelling the petitioner to
approach the Court under Section 156(3) CrPC. In these
circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned orders suffer from
legal and factual infirmities and are liable to be quashed.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the
petition and supports the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial
Court as well as the learned Revisional Court. It is submitted that both
the Courts below have passed well-reasoned and speaking orders
after considering the material placed on record and no interference is
warranted in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. It is contended that
the application preferred under Section 156(3) CrPC did not disclose
ingredients of the alleged offences in a manner so as to mandatorily
require direction for registration of FIR, and the learned Magistrate
was well within his jurisdiction to decline such prayer upon evaluation
of the preliminary material and inquiry report.
8. Learned State counsel further submits that the allegations levelled by
the petitioner are omnibus, exaggerated and arise out of matrimonial
discord between the petitioner and respondent No.1. It is argued that
the preliminary inquiry conducted by the concerned Police Station,
along with statements of witnesses, did not substantiate the
allegations of grievous assault or attempt to murder as alleged. The
Courts below have rightly observed that the medical documents
placed on record do not conclusively connect the alleged injuries with
the incidents in question and there were inconsistencies regarding
dates and timing of the alleged occurrences, which created doubt
about the veracity of the allegations.
9. It is also submitted that the power under Section 156(3) CrPC is
discretionary and not to be exercised mechanically, and when the
Magistrate, after considering the complaint, documents and
preliminary evidence, formed an opinion that no case for directing
registration of FIR is made out, such finding, having been affirmed by
the Revisional Court, does not call for interference. Therefore, the
present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have
perused the record with utmost circumspection.
11. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') invoking the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the orders dated
05.12.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Durg in MJC Criminal/15030/2022 and the order dated 05.09.2024
passed in Criminal Revision No. 45/2024, whereby the application
preferred by the petitioner under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking
direction for registration of FIR against respondent Nos.1 to 3 has
been rejected and the said rejection has been affirmed in revision.
12. At the outset, it is apposite to observe that the inherent jurisdiction
under Section 528 of the BNSS is to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection, and only to prevent abuse of the process of Court or
to secure the ends of justice. Such extraordinary jurisdiction is not
meant to substitute a statutory remedy nor to re-appreciate factual
findings concurrently recorded by two Courts below, unless the
impugned orders suffer from patent illegality, perversity or
jurisdictional error.
13. Upon careful examination of the impugned orders, this Court finds that
the learned Trial Court, after considering the application under Section
156(3) CrPC, the preliminary evidence adduced by the petitioner, the
medical documents and the inquiry report, recorded a categorical
finding that the material placed on record did not warrant issuance of
direction for registration of FIR. The learned Revisional Court, on
independent re-appreciation of the record, concurred with the findings
of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the revision petition. The
findings so recorded are findings of fact based on appreciation of
material available on record and cannot be termed as perverse or
manifestly illegal.
14. It is well settled that mere allegation of commission of cognizable
offence does not ipso facto compel the Magistrate to direct registration
of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC. The Magistrate is required to apply
judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present
case, both the Courts below have assigned reasons while rejecting the
application. This Court does not find that such exercise suffers from
non-application of mind or that relevant material has been completely
ignored so as to shock the conscience of this Court.
15. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1 admittedly
arises in the backdrop of matrimonial discord. The petitioner has
remedies available in accordance with law, including institution of a
complaint case under Chapter XV of the Code, if so advised.
However, the inherent powers of this Court cannot be invoked to direct
registration of FIR in a mechanical manner when the competent
Courts have, upon due consideration, declined such relief.
16. This Court is of the considered view that no case of miscarriage of
justice, abuse of process of Court or failure of justice is made out
warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS. The petitioner
has failed to demonstrate any patent illegality, perversity or
jurisdictional error in the impugned orders.
17. Accordingly, the instant petition being devoid of merit is hereby
dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Kunal
