Santosh Kumar Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 865 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Santosh Kumar Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 March, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                           1




                                                                          2026:CGHC:13613-DB
                                                                                        NAFR

                                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                                 CRMP No. 813 of 2026

                       Santosh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Rajkumar Sharma Aged About 65
                       Years R/o Ward No 08, Shlok Vihar Sipat, Road Sarkanda, District-
                       Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                                                                ... Petitioner(s)
                                                         versus
                       1.   State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Police
                            Station- Sarkanda District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
                       2.   Xyz (Complainant) Nill
                                                                             ...Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23.03.2026

1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date:

State/respondent No. 1.

2026.03.23 17:40:32 +0530

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:

"1. Quash the FIR (Annexure P/1) bearing Crime No.

176 of 2026 registered at Police Station Sarkanda,

District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the alleged offences

punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 85 of

the BNS, 2023 and Section 25of the Arms Act, insofar

as the present petitioner is concerned.

2. Quash all consequential proceedings arising out of

the aforesaid FIR, including investigation, arrest, filing

of charge-sheet and any further criminal action against

the petitioner herein.

3. Pass any other appropriate order or direction which

this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts

and circumstances of the case, in the interest of

justice."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a

senior citizen and a retired employee who has lived a dignified, law-

abiding, and respectable life. It is further submitted that the petitioner is

the maternal uncle of the husband of respondent No. 2, namely Ankit

Tiwari, and his relationship with the complainant is remote, as he is not

a member of the immediate matrimonial household.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

marriage between respondent No. 2 and Ankit Tiwari was solemnized

on 05.02.2022 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, and

thereafter the couple resided at Park Life Colony, Sarkanda, whereas

the petitioner has always been residing separately at Shlok Vihar, Sipat

Road. It is further submitted that the disputes between respondent No. 2

and her husband were purely matrimonial in nature, arising out of

alleged intoxication and quarrels, in which the petitioner had no role.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the alleged

incident dated 23.01.2026 pertains solely to the husband, who is

alleged to have assaulted respondent No. 2 under the influence of

alcohol, and there is no allegation that the petitioner was present at the

spot or involved in any manner. It is argued that the FIR dated

10.02.2026 registered at Police Station Sarkanda names only the

husband as an accused, and no role has been attributed to the

petitioner at the earliest point of time.

6. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petitioner has been implicated subsequently on the basis of vague

and omnibus allegations made during counselling proceedings, which

are devoid of material particulars and amount to an improvement over

the original version. He would submit that the petitioner is suffering from

serious medical ailments and is under continuous treatment, and

despite absence of specific allegations, the investigating agency is

attempting to implicate him. He further submitted that the anticipatory

bail application of the petitioner has already been rejected by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, vide order dated

11.03.2026, without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances

of the case. It is also argued that subsequent addition of offences,

including Section 85 of the BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act, is

unwarranted as no specific role or recovery has been attributed to the

petitioner. Hence, this petition.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the

petition and submits that the investigation is at a nascent stage and

material has been collected during the course of investigation, including

statements recorded during counselling proceedings, which indicate the

involvement of the petitioner. It is submitted that the allegations cannot

be said to be inherently improbable at this stage and require thorough

investigation. It is further contended that the petitioner's plea involves

disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings

under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the

material available on record, including the impugned FIR.

9. A perusal of the FIR reveals that it originates from a forwarding

action by a police constable, pursuant to which the case diary of Crime

No. 00/2026 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Korba, under

Sections 296, 115(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was

brought and registered. The FIR records that the alleged incident dated

23.01.2026 at about 10:00 p.m. took place at the matrimonial residence

in Park Life Colony, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, wherein the husband, in an

intoxicated condition, is alleged to have abused, threatened, and

assaulted the complainant using hands, fists, and an iron rod/pipe. The

contents of the FIR primarily attribute the acts to the husband.

10. It is well settled that the power of the High Court to quash criminal

proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) is extraordinary in

nature and is to be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and only in

cases where the allegations do not disclose any cognizable offence or

where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the

process of law.

11. The principles governing the exercise of such jurisdiction have

been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions,

including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604; Rupan

Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194; Rajesh Bajaj v. State

NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma Pvt.

Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 269; State of Orissa v. Saroj

Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540; and Neharika Infrastructure Pvt.

Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, wherein it

has been consistently held that at the stage of quashing, the Court

should not embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of

the allegations or enter into disputed questions of fact.

12. In the present case, although the FIR initially attributes allegations

primarily against the husband, the material collected during

investigation, including subsequent statements, forms part of the case

diary and cannot be completely ignored at this stage. Whether such

material is sufficient to establish the involvement of the petitioner is a

matter that requires investigation and, if necessary, trial.

13. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, including

his distant relationship, separate residence, medical condition, and

absence of specific allegations in the FIR, are matters of defence which

involve appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively adjudicated

in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.

14. It is also settled that subsequent statements recorded during

investigation cannot be discarded at the threshold merely on the ground

that they were not part of the initial FIR, particularly when the

investigation is still in progress.

15. In the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations, when read

in conjunction with the material collected during investigation, cannot be

said to be so absurd or inherently improbable so as to warrant

interference at this stage. The case does not fall within the parameters

laid down for quashing of criminal proceedings.

16. Accordingly, no case is made out for exercise of inherent

jurisdiction to quash the FIR or the consequential proceedings, and the

petition is liable to be dismissed.

17. Consequently, the present petition stands dismissed. However, it

is observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail such remedies

as are available to him in accordance with law. In case the petitioner

apprehends his arrest, he is granted liberty to file an appropriate

application for anticipatory bail before the competent Court, which shall

be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law, without

being influenced by any observations made in the present order. It is

further clarified that the observations made herein are only for the

purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not prejudice the case

of either party during the course of investigation or trial.

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




Brijmohan