Chattisgarh High Court
Ravi Banjare vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 July, 2025
1/7
ANURADHA
TIWARI
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by ANURADHA
CRMP No. 2224 of 2025
TIWARI
Date: 2025.07.16
17:43:18 +0530
1 - Ravi Banjare S/o Jagdish Banjare Aged About 29 Years R/o
Village - Singhanpuri Police Station Kawardha, District - Kabirdham
(C.G.)
2 - Jagdish Banjare S/o Maniram Banjare Aged About 56 Years R/o
Village - Singhanpuri Police Station Kawardha, District - Kabirdham
(C.G.)
3 - Raju Banjare S/o Jagdish Banjare Aged About 27 Years (Wrongly
Mentioned As Maniram In The Order Sheet) Banjare R/o Village -
Singhanpuri Police Station Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.)
4 - Manoj Banjare S/o Jagdish Banjare Aged About 24 Years R/o
Village - Singhanpuri Police Station Kawardha, District - Kabirdham
(C.G.)
5 - Shanti Bai W/o Jagdish Banjare Aged About 52 Years R/o Village
- Singhanpuri Police Station Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.)
6 - Sushma Banjare W/o Manoj Banjare Aged About 22 Years R/o
Village - Singhanpuri Police Station Kawardha, District - Kabirdham
(C.G.)
7 - Nidhi Banjare D/o Jagdish Banjare Aged About 20 Years R/o
Village - Singhanpuri Police Station Kawardha, District - Kabirdham
(C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
2/7
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station Mahila Thana Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.)
2 - Smt. Anjoriya Bai Banjare W/o Ravi Banjare Aged About 25 Years
R/o Village - Singhanpuri Police Station Kawardha, District -
Kabirdham (C.G.) Mobile No. 7203918014 (As Per Challan)
(Complainant)
... Respondent(s)
Order Sheet
16.07.2025 Heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel
for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal,
learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No. 1 / State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
there is a matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 /
husband and respondent No. 2 / wife and the alleged
marriage between them was solemnized in the month of
March, 2024 through the Chudi custom, the petitioners
are innocent person and they have not committed any
offence alleged by the prosecution. He further submits
that the FIR and charge-sheet contain vague, omnibus
and general allegations of dowry, harassment and
3/7
domestic violence without specifying particular incidents,
dates or acts attributable to each accused. The absence
of concrete evidence fails to establish a prima facie case
under Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Preeti Gupta && Another vs.
State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 emphasized that
vague allegations without corroborative evidence warrant
quashing to prevent abuse of process, therefore, the
instant criminal case No. 1539/2025 along with FIR,
taking cognizance order dated 04.04.2025 and charges
framed on 05.05.2025 are liable to be set-aside/quashed
by this Hon’ble Court. Further, the respondent
No.2/complainant is not legally wedded wife of the
petitioner No.1 as she is wife of Aghnu Banjare of Village
Manki, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) and it
is further respectfully submitted that on 11.06.2022 a
report was lodged bearing Crime No. 413/2022 by the
respondent No.2 namely Smt. Anjoriya Bai who is wife of
Aghnu Banjare against her husband namely Aghnu
Banjare for the offence under Section 294, 323, 506 of
4/7
IPC and subsequently vide judgment dated 24.09.2022
the husband of the respondent No.2 confessed before
the trial Court and he was sentenced up to rising of the
Court and fine amounting to Rs. 2500/- by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lormi. The criminal
proceedings appear to be initiated with an ulterior motive
to harass the petitioners, particularly the in-laws, who are
roped in without specific roles in the alleged
complainant’s failure to settle during counseling at the
Women’s Cell suggests a vindictive approach rather than
a genuine grievance. The Hon’ble High Court in State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 laid
down that proceedings may be quashed if they are
manifestly attended with mala fide intent or instituted to
wreak vengeance. Also, the invocation of Sections 85,
296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, is misconceived as the allegations do not disclose
ingredients of wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt
or criminal intimidation for demand of dowry. For
instance, Section 351(3) requires a specific threat to
cause injury, which is absent in the complainant’s
5/7
narrative.
He lastly submits that the present matter be
referred to Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court
being matrimonial in nature as there may be chances of
compromise between the parties.
Considering the fact that the dispute arrived
between the parties i.e. petitioner No.1 / husband and
respondent No. 2 / wife is matrimonial in nature, we
deem it appropriate to make an effort to get the said
dispute settled by way of mediation.
In view of the above, petitioner No.1 shall deposit
Rs. 1,00,000/- with the Mediation Centre of this Court
and the same shall be paid to respondent No. 2 on her
appearance before the Mediation Centre.
Parties are directed to appear before the
Mediation Centre of this Court on 04.08.2025.
Learned State counsel is directed to inform the
private respondent No.2 about passing of this order, so
that she may appear before the Mediation Centre on the
aforesaid date.
6/7
List this matter along with report of Mediation
Centre before this Court on 18.08.2025.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings in
relation to Criminal Case No. 1539/2025, arising out of
FIR No. 11/2025 instituted to charge-sheet bearing
No.10/2025 for commission of offence which is
punishable under Section 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3) & 3(5)
of the BNS registered at Police Station Mahila Thana,
Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.), shall remain
stayed.
After depositing the amount as aforesaid, notice
shall be issued to the parties.
It is made clear that in case the aforesaid amount
is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the interim
protection granted as above shall automatically be
vacated and this petition shall stand dismissed without
further reference to any Bench of this Court.
The petitioners are directed to produce the copy of
the receipt before the trial Court concerned regarding
payment of the said money before the Mediation Centre
of this Court in pursuance of this Court’s order, then only
7/7
this order shall be given into effect.
It is also made clear that if any final settlement is
arrived at between the parties, the aforesaid amount so
deposited, shall be adjusted.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu