Chattisgarh High Court
Poonam Mishra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13159
KUNAL
NAFR
DEWANGAN
Digitally
signed by
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
CRMP No. 1131 of 2021
Anvesh Mishra S/o Late Sushil Kumar Mishra Aged About 33 Years R/o
Maharana Pratap Nagar, Shri Ram Park Colony, Ward No. 01, P. S. Tifra,
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Home Secretary, Government Of
Chhattisgarh,
2 - Umesh Pratap Singh S/o Rajendra Pratap Singh R/o Maharana Pratap
Nagar, Shree Ram Park Colony, Presently Residing In Yadunandan
Nagar, P. S. Tifra, Tifra, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
3 - Suman Singh W/o Umesh Pratap Singh R/o Maharana Pratap Nagar,
Shree Ram Park Colony, Presiding In Yadunandan Nagar, P. S. Tifra,
Tifra, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
4 - Rahul Singh Presently Working As Residing In Amadan, Bhalumada,
Tehsil Kotma, District Kotma, District Kotma, Anuppur, Through Area
General Manager Jamuna Kotma Area Of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
Kotma District Anuppur Pin 484444
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priya Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate
CRMP No. 1113 of 2021
1 – Poonam Mishra D/o Late Suhil Kumar Mishra Aged About 27 Years
R/o Maharana Pratap Nagar, Shri Ram Park Colony, Makan No. D/9,
Tifra Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 – Priya Mishra D/o Late Sushil Kumar Mishra Aged About 30 Years R/o
Maharana Pratap Nagar, Shri Ram Park Colony, Makan No. D/9, Tifra
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
… Petitioner(s)
2
versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Sirgitty Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 – Umesh Singh S/o Rajendra Singh R/o Maharana Pratap Nagar, Shri
Ram Park Colony, Makan No. D/7, Presently Residing In Yadunandan
Nagar, Police Station Sirgitty, Tifra Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
3 – Suman Singh W/o Umesh Singh R/o Maharana Pratap Nagar, Shri
Ram Park Colony, Makan No. D/7, Presently Residing In Yadunandan
Nagar, Police Station Sirgitty, Tifra Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
4 – Rahul Singh S/o Ajay Singh Presently Working And Residing In
Amadand, Bhalumada, Tahsil Kotma, District Anuppur Through Area
General Manager , Jamuna Kotma Area Of South Eastern Coalfields
Limited Kotma, District Anuppur Madhya Pradesh Pin Code 484444.
… Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priya Mishra, petitioner No.2 in
Person.
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Judgment on Board
19.03.2026
1. The present petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) have been preferred by the
petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 22.09.2021, passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision
No. 64/2021 and Criminal Revision No. 63/2021, whereby the
learned Revisional Court has dismissed the revision and affirmed
the order of framing of charge passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 2458/2018
arising out of Crime No. 119/2018 registered at Police Station
Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.).
3
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case that, before the
learned trial Court, namely Poonam Mishra and Priya Mishra in
Criminal Revision No. 63/2021 and petitioner-Anvesh Mishra in
Criminal Revision No. 64/2021, were prosecuted on the basis of a
First Information Report lodged by the complainant Suman Singh,
wherein Crime No. 119/2018 was registered at Police Station
Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under
Sections 294, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC‘) against these three persons.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.04.2018 at about 8:00
PM, upon hearing noise of quarrel outside her house, the
complainant/respondent No.3 Suman Singh came out and saw that
her husband Umesh Pratap Singh was being abused in filthy
language and assaulted by all the three with slippers and a cable
wire. When she, along with her son Harsh Singh, intervened to
pacify the matter, the petitioner- Anvesh Mishra allegedly caught
hold of her hair, threw her on the ground and assaulted her with
hands and fists. Further, her son Harsh Singh was pushed by the
Poonam Mishra and Priya Mishra, as a result of which he fell on the
ground. When her brother Rahul Singh/respondent No.4 intervened,
all the three persons also assaulted him. As a result of the said
assault, her husband Umesh Pratap Singh sustained injuries on his
right wrist, back and left hand and her brother Rahul also sustained
injuries.
4. On 03.04.2021, after hearing arguments on the point of charge, the
4
learned trial Court framed charges against all the three accused
persons for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 325 and
323 IPC for allegedly abusing the complainant Umesh Pratap Singh
in a public place and voluntarily causing grievous hurt to him and
simple hurt to Harsh Singh. Further, charge under Section 506 Part-
II IPC was framed for allegedly extending threats to kill the
complainant Suman Singh and her husband Umesh Pratap Singh,
thereby causing criminal intimidation.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order of framing of charges, the present
petitioners/accused (who were revisionists in Criminal Revision
No.64/2021 and Criminal Revision No.63/2021) preferred a criminal
revision before the revisional Court. The learned revisional Court,
after considering the material available on record and the settled
legal position with regard to framing of charges, held that at the
stage of framing of charge only a prima facie case is to be seen and
the defence raised by the accused persons cannot be appreciated.
It was further observed that the grounds raised by the
revisionists/accused, such as non-seizure of certain articles, non-
examination of certain witnesses and alleged inconsistencies in the
prosecution case, are matters relating to defence which can be
tested during trial and are not sufficient for discharge at the stage of
framing of charge. The revisional Court found that there are
sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused persons on
the basis of the charge-sheet and accompanying documents and
that no illegality or perversity has been committed by the trial Court
in framing the charges. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 64/2021
5
and Criminal Revision No. 63/2021, were dismissed. Being
aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned revisional Court
in Criminal Revision No.64/2021 and Criminal Revision
No.63/2021, the present petitioners have preferred the present
petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
6. Ms. Priya Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRMP
No.1131/2021 and petitioner No.2 in person in CRMP
No.1113/2021 submits that the petitioners have been falsely
implicated in the present cases and the entire prosecution story is a
result of biased, unfair and incomplete investigation. It is submitted
that one Suman Singh lodged an FIR against the petitioners under
Sections 294, 506, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, however, during
the course of investigation, statements of only interested witnesses
i.e. Umesh Singh, Rahul Singh and Suman Singh were recorded,
while material witness Harsh Singh, who was allegedly present at
the spot and is a child witness, was neither examined under Section
161 Cr.P.C. nor sent for medical examination. Even the complainant
Suman Singh was not medically examined. It is further submitted
that though the complainant side themselves disclosed existence of
CCTV footage and preparation of a CD, the same were neither
properly seized nor brought on record and even the alleged weapon
i.e. cable wire was not seized. The X-ray plate was also not
produced along with the charge-sheet and appears to have been
subsequently inserted without following due procedure. It is
contended that statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. bear
signatures and do not disclose the name of the recording officer,
6
which is in clear violation of law and several witnesses are either
interested or related, thereby rendering the investigation doubtful. It
is further submitted that even as per the prosecution case, the
incident occurred due to provocation by Umesh Singh and initially
the quarrel was only between him and the petitioners, therefore,
ingredients of Sections 323, 325 and 34 IPC are not made out. No
specific obscene words have been alleged so as to attract Section
294 IPC and the incident did not take place at a public place.
Further, mere utterance of words without intention or capability to
execute the threat does not constitute an offence under Section 506
Part-II IPC. It is also submitted that there exists a counter-case
between the parties, wherein the complainant side is an accused
and the present case is nothing but a counterblast. In such
circumstances, the learned trial Court as well as revisional Court
have failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper
perspective and continuation of proceedings against the petitioners
would amount to abuse of process of law, hence the impugned
orders and entire criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners
and contends that both learned trial Court as well as the revisional
Court have passed well-reasoned and legally sustainable orders
after due consideration of the material available on record. It is
submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, only a prima facie
case is required to be seen and the Courts below have rightly found
sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners. It is further
7
contended that no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error has
been committed by the Courts below warranting interference by this
Court. Hence, it is prayed that the present petitions, being devoid of
merit, deserve to be dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 opposes the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that
the learned trial Court has rightly framed the charges after due
consideration of the material available on record and the said order
has been duly affirmed by the revisional Court in Criminal Revision
No. 64/2021 and Criminal Revision No. 63/2021 vide order dated
22.09.2021. It is further submitted that there is no illegality or
perversity in the impugned orders warranting interference by this
Court. It is also contended that there exists a counter-case between
the parties, however, the same does not dilute the prima facie case
made out against the petitioners. Hence, the present petition, being
devoid of merit, deserve to be dismissed.
9. The petitioners, in rejoinder, submits that the present petitions have
been filed challenging the order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 64/2021
and Criminal Revision No. 63/2021, whereby the revision preferred
against the order dated 03.04.2021 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur framing charges in Criminal Case
No. 2458/2018 has been dismissed and both the Courts below have
failed to appreciate the material available on record in its true
perspective. It is reiterated that the prosecution case arises out of
8
FIR bearing Crime No. 119/2018 lodged by Suman Singh, whereas
a counter-case bearing Crime No. 118/2018 is also pending against
the complainant side, clearly indicating that the present case is a
counterblast. It is further submitted that despite specific directions
issued by the Court for fair investigation, the investigating agency
has acted in a biased manner, inasmuch as material witnesses
were not examined, crucial evidence such as CCTV footage and
alleged weapon was not seized and even the X-ray plate was not
produced with the charge-sheet but appears to have been
subsequently inserted without following due procedure. It is further
contended that the investigation is vitiated due to serious
procedural irregularities, including recording of statements under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. with signatures in violation of Section 162
Cr.P.C., non-disclosure of the identity of the investigating officer and
reliance upon interested witnesses, some of whom are either
accused in the counter-case or closely related to the complainant
side. It is also reiterated that essential ingredients of the alleged
offences under Sections 294, 323, 325, 506 and 34 IPC are not
made out, as no specific obscene words have been attributed, the
alleged incident did not occur at a public place, there was no
common intention and the alleged threats were not of such nature
so as to constitute criminal intimidation. In such circumstances, it is
submitted that both the trial Court as well as the revisional Court
have mechanically proceeded without proper application of mind
and therefore, the present petitions deserve to be allowed and the
impugned orders as well as entire criminal proceedings are liable to
9
be quashed.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents appended with this petition.
11. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others
v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the
principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first
information report and it has been held that such power can be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the
report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such
power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC
should be exercised, which are as under: –
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226
or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(1)Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
10offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2)Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose
the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused.
(4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation
is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.
(5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.
(6)Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or
the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that
11
the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should
be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection
and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court
will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as
to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that
the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to
its whim or caprice.”
12. The Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma and
others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2016) 9 SCC 1
held as under:-
“35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section 482
of the Code, a similar view has been taken by a Division
Bench of this Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan
Kal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was held as
under:-
“29. The issue being examined in the instant
case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the
initiation of the prosecution against an
accused at the stage of issuing process, or at
the stage of committal, or even at the stage of
framing of charges. These are all stages
before the commencement of the actual trial.
The same parameters would naturally be
available for later stages as well. The power
vested in the High Court under Section 482
CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove,
would have far-reaching consequences
inasmuch as it would negate the
prosecution’s/complainant’s case without
allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead
evidence. Such a determination must always
12be rendered with caution, care and
circumspection. To invoke its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High
Court has to be fully satisfied that the material
produced by the accused is such that would
lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is
based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable
facts; the material produced is such as would
rule out and displace the assertions contained
in the charges levelled against the accused;
and the material produced is such as would
clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the
allegations contained in the accusations
levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It
should be sufficient to rule out, reject and
discard the accusations levelled by the
prosecution/complainant, without the
necessity of recording any evidence. For this
the material relied upon by the defence should
not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot
be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling
and impeccable quality. The material relied
upon by the accused should be such as would
persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the actual basis of the accusations
as false. In such a situation, the judicial
conscience of the High Court would persuade
it to exercise its power under Section 482
CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for
that would prevent abuse of process of the
court, and secure the ends of justice.
30. Based on the factors canvassed in the
foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the
following steps to determine the veracity of a
13prayer for quashment raised by an accused by
invoking the power vested in the High Court
under Section 482 CrPC:
30.1. Step one: whether the material relied
upon by the accused is sound, reasonable,
and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling
and impeccable quality?
30.2. Step two: whether the material relied
upon by the accused would rule out the
assertions contained in the charges levelled
against the accused i.e. the material is
sufficient to reject and overrule the factual
assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the
material is such as would persuade a
reasonable person to dismiss and condemn
the factual basis of the accusations as false?
30.3. Step three: whether the material relied
upon by the accused has not been refuted by
the prosecution/complainant; and/or the
material is such that it cannot be justifiably
refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the
trial would result in an abuse of process of the
court, and would not serve the ends of
justice?
30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the
affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High
Court should persuade it to quash such
criminal proceedings in exercise of power
vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such
exercise of power, besides doing justice to the
accused, would save precious court time,
14which would otherwise be wasted in holding
such a trial (as well as proceedings arisingt
therefrom) specially when it is clear that the
same would not conclude in the conviction of
the accused.”
13. In the matter of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013)
11 SCC 673, the Supreme Court recognized that although the
inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High
Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings
which are essentially of a civil nature. It was held as under:
“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This
power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose
of preventing abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a
complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends
upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether
essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or
not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint
disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal
texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute
which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of
criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is
available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in
this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash
the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of
the court.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra v. State of
15
Uttarakhand (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Randheer
Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh has observed that criminal
proceedings cannot be permitted to be used as a weapon of
harassment. Further, in Usha Chakraborty v. State of West
Bengal, it has been reiterated that where a dispute which is
essentially of a personal nature is given a colour of criminal offence,
such proceedings are liable to be quashed by exercising inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and
Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh (supra) also
govern the field.
15. From perusal of the impugned order dated 22.09.2021 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision
No.64/2021 and Criminal Revision No.63/2021, affirming the order
dated 03.04.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 2458/2018 framing charges
against the petitioners under Sections 294, 323, 325, 506 Part-II
read with Section 34 IPC, it transpires that the trial Court as well a
revisional Court have proceeded mechanically without proper
appreciation of the material available on record. The record reveals
that material witnesses were not examined, including the alleged
injured child witness Harsh Singh, the complainant herself was not
subjected to medical examination and crucial evidence such as the
alleged weapon (cable wire), CCTV footage and X-ray plate were
neither properly seized nor produced along with the charge-sheet in
accordance with law. It further appears that statements under
16
Section 161 Cr.P.C. bear signatures in violation of Section 162
Cr.P.C. and even the identity of the investigating officer has not
been disclosed. The existence of a counter-case between the
parties (Crime No. 118/2018) also indicates that the present
proceedings arise out of a personal dispute. Moreover, no specific
obscene words have been attributed so as to attract Section 294
IPC and the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not
prima facie made out from the material on record.
16. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the allegations made against the petitioners are
inherently improbable and the material collected during
investigation does not disclose the commission of the alleged
offences. The proceedings appear to be manifestly attended with
mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive and continuation of
such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
17. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 22.09.2021
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal
Revision No. 64/2021 as well as Criminal Revision No.63/2021, are
hereby set aside. Consequently, the order dated 03.04.2021
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in
Criminal Case No.2458/2018 framing charges against the
petitioners is also set aside and the entire criminal proceedings
arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
17
18. The present petitions being CRMP No.1131/2021 and CRMP
No.1113/2021, under Section 482 CrPC are allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
19. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court as well as revisional Court concerned for necessary
information and compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Kunal
