Atish Meshram Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶18

2

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

¶21

21/04/2025

¶22

Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing.

¶23

Heard Mr. Shivam Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, for the State/Respondent and Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2/complainant.

¶24

The present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer :-

¶25

“ It is respectfully prayed that the entire records and the case diary pertaining to the impugned FIR No. 375/2024 registered at the PS Kanker, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker (CG), the impugned chargesheet No. 350/2024 filed for the offences under Sections 85, 3(5) of the BNS 2023, the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 taking cognizance of the offences by the trial Court under Sections 85, 3(5) of the BNS and the entire criminal proceedings that are undergoing in Criminal Case No. 6597 of 2024 State of Chhattisgrh Vs Atish Meshram and 2 Others before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttar Bastar, Kanker (CG) may kindly be called from the Police Station Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (CG).

¶26

2. It is respectfully prayed that (i) the impugned FIR No. 375/2024 which has been registered against the petitioners at the PS Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (CG) (ii) the impugned

¶27

3

¶28

charge sheet No. 350/2024 filed for the offence under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the BNS 2023, (iii) the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 taking cognizance of the offences by the trial court under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the BNS and (iv) the entire criminal proceedings that are undergoing in Criminal Case No. 6597/2024 State of Chhattisgarh V. Atish Meshram and 2 others before the Court of learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Uttar Bastar Kanker may kindly be quashed/set aside, because they are bad, illegal, perverse and untenable in the eyes of law.

¶29

3. It is respectfully prayed that any other criminal proceedings, if existing in connection with the impugned chargesheet No. 350/2024 filed for the offences under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the BNS 2023 arising out of the impugned FIR No. 375/2024 registered at PS Kanker, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker (CG) may kindly be quashed/set aside, because it is /are bad, illegal and untenable in the eyes of law.

¶30

4. it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of the present petitioner, as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.”

¶31

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2/complainant and petitioner No. 2 & 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law. The petitioner No.1/Atish Meshram got married with respondent No.2/Disha on 05.04.2013 as per Hindu rites and rituals. It is the case of prosecution that after six month of her marriage, the relations with her in-law began to go downhill as they as it is alleged that they were subjecting her to harassment for demand of

¶32

4

¶33

dowry. On 26.10.2024, the respondent No.2 lodged the impugned FIR No. 375/2024 and in pursuance thereof, the police filed the impugned charge sheet bearing No. 350/2024 for the offences under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the BNS 2023 and the criminal proceedings re going on before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bastar, Kanker (CG).

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that being aggrieved from the frivolous and baseless complaint being lodged by the respondent No.2, the petitioners have preferred this petition for quashing/setting aside the FIR No. 375/2024 registered at PS Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, the impugned charge sheet No. 350/2024 filed for the offences under Sections 85,3(5) of the BNS 2023, the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 taking cognizance of the offences by the trial Court and the entire criminal proceedings that are undergoing in Criminal Case No. 6597/2024 State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Atish Meshram and 2 Others before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttar Bastar, Kanker. Earlier the petitioners had filed Cr.M.P. No 563/2025 before this Court for quashing of the concerned criminal proceedings against them but the same was withdrawn with liberty to file petition afresh with proper prayer vide order dated 14.02.2025.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR No,. 375/2024 at PS Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, the charge sheet and the order dated 17.12.2024 taking cognizance of the offences by the trial court and the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6597 of 2024 are bad, illegal and untenable in the eyes of law and therefore they are liable to be quashed/set aside. It is further submitted

¶36

5

¶37

that the respondent No.2/complainant has made baseless and vague allegations against the petitioners only to harass them and it is based on concocted cooked up stories. He submits that the respondent No.2/complainant is forcing the petitioner No.1 to live separately from his parents and is subjecting him to mental cruelty. It is submitted that after marriage, respondent No.2/complainant always used to leave for her maternal home as per her whims and fancies without informing her husband and in-laws. In the month of August 2024, she went to her parent’s house on Rakshabhandhan but when she did not return till 24.08.2024, the petitioners contacted her parents and they were informed that she had gone to Raipur. It is submitted that on 05.09.2024, the petitioner No.1 was in Durg at his work place and the petitioner No.2 had gone to his village to look after his agricultural fields and therefore the incidents as stated by the respondent No.2 to have occurred on 05.09.2024 is completely false and baseless. He further submits that the respondent No.2 returned to her matrimonial home on 24.08.2024 at about 10.30 pm and she was drunk and on being asked, she left for her parents house. It is submitted that on many occasions, the petitioner No.1 has transferred money into the bank account of respondent NO.2 and also to the bank accounts of her relatives nd friends to make her feel happy and comfortable.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that an act to constitute offence, the allegation should demonstrate the intention and act of the present petitioners towards the respondent No. 2, as the petitioners have never done any such act which falls under definition of Section 85 of the BNS and even if entire case of the prosecution would

¶39

6

¶40

be taken in its own face value than also the ingredients of Section 85 of the BNS would not made out against the petitioners. He further states that no specific act of the petitioners have been attributed in the FIR and the petitioners have been implicated in crime in question only on the basis of vague, general and omnibus type statement of the complainant/wife with intent to harass the petitioners, therefore, allowing the continuation of criminal case against them would amount to abuse of process of law and thus, the impugned FIR, charge-sheet as well as criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) as Criminal Case No. 6597/2024 deserves to be quashed. He has placed his reliance in the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Dara Lakshmi Nrayana and Others Vs. State of Telangana and Another 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682, which reads as under:

¶41

“28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalized allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken

¶42

7

¶43

to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.

¶44

He would further rely upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 , wherein it has been held as under:

¶45

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 extra-ordinary 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 channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶46

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 primafacie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶47

Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. 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.

¶48

Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the

¶49

8

¶50

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.

¶51

Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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.

¶52

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.

¶53

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.

¶54

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide 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.”

¶55

Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 10 SCC 741, it has been held that casual reference to the family members of the husband in FIR as coaccused particularly when there is no specific allegation and complaint did not disclose their active involvement. It was held that cognizance of matter against them for offence under Sections 498-A. 323,504,506 and 304-B of the IPC would not be justified as congnizance would result in abuse of judicial process.

¶56

He has further relied upon the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2019) SCC OnLine SC 620 , wherein it

¶57

9

¶58

has been held by the Apex Court relying upon the principle of law laid down in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others,1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 that criminal proceedings can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie ofence is disclosed and further held that judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of oppression or harassment and the High Court should not hesitate in exercising the jurisdiction to quash the proceedings if the proceedings deserve to be quashed in line of parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) and further held that in absence of specific allegation regarding anyone of the accused except common and general allegations against everyone, no offence under Section 498A IPC is made out and quashed the charges for offence under Section 498A of the IPC being covered by category seven as enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra).

¶59

He has also relied upon the judgments of this Court in Satyanarayan Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer and Another (Cr.M.P. No. 2496/2023, 2024 SC OnLine Chh 13906); Manoj Jaiswal and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Officer Incharge Police Station Sarangarh and Another Cr.M.P. No. 2785 of 2024,2024 SCC OnLine Chh 13540); Suraj Prakash Sahu and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer and Others (Cr.M.P. No. 2531 of 2023, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 13314).

¶60

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 is made out. He would further

¶61

10

¶62

submit that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS is extremely limited as FIR cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient material available on record to put the accused persons to trial. He would rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Taramani Parakh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2015) 11 SCC 260, to buttress his submission that allegation of cruelty is question of fact to be established during trial, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶63

Learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2/complainant, would submit that there are serious allegations against the petitioners for treating respondent No. 2 with cruelty. He would further submit that the respondent No.2 had left her matrimonial home because she was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry by her in laws and they are subjecting her to harassment. He further submits that all submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners relate to question of fact, that can be considered during the course of trial and that cannot be considered at this stage and that too, in proceeding under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. as all ingredients of the aforesaid offences are available to put the petitioners to trial, as such, it is the case where the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶64

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶65

In compliance of the Court’s order dated 17.03.2025, the matter has been referred to the Mediation Center for amicable settlement between petitioner No.1/husband and respondent No. 2/wife, but both

¶66

11

¶67

the parties are not ready to compromise the matter and to settle their dispute. Hence, the mediation has failed.

¶68

In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that casual reference to the family member of the husband in FIR as co-accused particularly when there is no specific allegation and complaint did not disclose their active involvement. It was held that cognizance of matter against them for offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC would not be justified as cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process.

¶69

In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others, (2018) 14 SCC 452 the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated the duty of the criminal Courts while proceeding against relatives of victim's husband and held that the Court should be careful in proceeding against distant relatives in crime pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and further held that relatives of husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations, unless specific instances of their involvement in ofences are made out.

¶70

In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620, it has been held by the Supreme Court relying upon the principle of law laid down in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others,1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 that criminal proceedings can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie ofence is disclosed and further held that judicial process is a

¶71

12

¶72

solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of oppression or harassment and the High Court should not hesitate in exercising the jurisdiction to quash the proceedings if the proceedings deserve to be quashed in line of parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) and further held that in absence of specific allegation regarding anyone of the accused except common and general allegations against everyone, no offence under Section 498A IPC is made out and quashed the charges for offence under Section 498A of the IPC being covered by category seven as enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra) by holding as under:-

¶73

“24. Coming back to the allegations in the complaint pertaining to Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the allegations against the appellants for ofence under Section 498-A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act are general and sweeping.

¶74

No specific incident dates or details of any incident has been mentioned in the complaint. The complaint having been filed after proceeding for divorce was initiated by Nayan Chopra in State of Michigan, where Vanshika participated and divorce was ultimately granted. A few months after filing of the divorce petition, the complaint has been filed in the Court of C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar with the allegations as noticed above. The sequence of the events and facts and circumstances of the case leads us to conclude that the complaint under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act have been filed as counter blast to divorce petition proceeding in State of Michigan by Nayan Chopra.

¶75

There being no specific allegation regarding anyone of the applicants except common general

¶76

13

¶77

allegation against everyone i.e. “they started harassing the daughter of the applicant demanding additional dowry of one crore” and the fact that all relatives of the husband, namely, father, mother, brother, mother’s sister and husband of mother’s sister have been roped in clearly indicate that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed with a view to harass the applicants..…”

¶78

The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab & Another {Cr.A. No. 4773/2024, decided on 26.11.2024} had, relying on the decision in Geeta Mehrotra (supra), Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others {(2022) 6 SCC 599}, Bhajan Lal (supra) , and Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another {(2013) 10 SCC 591}, had quashed the FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶79

Very recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayan & Others v. State of Telangana & Another {Cr.A. No. 5199 of 2024, decided on 10.12.2024}, has observed as under:

¶80

A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a wellrecognized fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.

¶81

14

¶82

In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.

¶83

In fact, in the instant case, the first appellant and his wife i.e. the second respondent herein resided at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where he was working in Southern Railways. They were married in the year 2015 and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the second respondent gave birth to two children. Therefore, it cannot be believed that there was any harassment for dowry during the said period or that there was any matrimonial discord. Further, the second respondent in response to the missing complaint filed by the first appellant herein on 05.10.2021 addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting for closure of the said complaint as she had stated that she had left the matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a quarrel with the appellant No.1 because of one Govindan with whom the second respondent was

¶84

in contact over telephone for a period of ten days. She had also admitted that she would not repeat such acts in future. In the above conspectus of facts, we ind that the allegations of the second respondent against the appellants herein are too far-fetched and are not believable. 27. xxx xxx xxx

¶85

The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalized

¶86

15

¶87

allegations during matrimonial conlicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes,recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.

¶88

We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.

¶89

In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs.L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows:

¶90

“12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable

¶91

the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have

¶92

counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties

¶93

16

¶94

may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.”

¶95

Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

¶96

We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.”

¶97

In view of the aforesaid, the Hon’ble Apex Court quashed the FIR, the charge-sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court.

¶98

Having noticed the legal position qua quashing the FIR and charge sheet, the question would be whether taking the contents of the FIR and charge-sheet as it is, offence under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 is made out against the petitioners?

¶99

17

¶100

It is the case of the prosecution that marriage of the complainant with the petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 05/04/2021 as per their customary rites and rituals and on 26.10.2024, the respondent No. 2 has lodged the FIR alleging therein that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and his family members. In the complaint so made, the complainant has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners without being full particulars about date and place that all the petitioners including the husband treated her with cruelty for demand of dowry. There is no specific allegation regarding anyone of the petitioners except common and general allegations against all the petitioners that they have demanded cash amount.

¶101

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, material available on record, perusing the FIR in which no specific allegations have been made and only bald and omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Sections 85 and 3(5) of BNS Act is made out for prosecuting petitioner No.2-Jageshwar Meshram and petitioner No.3 Pranita Meshram for the above-stated ofences and the prosecution against them for the aforesaid offence is covered by Category 1, 3 & 7 of para-102 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) and as such, liable to be quashed.

¶102

As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Case No.6597/2024 pending before the learned trial court arising out of Crime

¶103

18

¶104

No. 375/2024 registered at Police Station, Kanker for the offence under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the BNS 2023 is hereby quashed to the extent of Petitioner No. 2 (Jageshwar Meshram) and Petitioner No.3 (Pranita Meshram). The prosecution against her husband i.e. petitioner No. 1- Atish Meshram, S/o Jageshwar Meshram shall continue.

¶105

It is made clear that all the observations made in this order are for the purpose of deciding the petition filed by the petitioners hereinabove and this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter and concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending against Atish Meshram strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of these observations made hereinabove.

¶106

The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶107

Sd/Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶108

Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY Date: DUBEY 2025.04.24 15:38:15 +0530

Atish Meshram v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atish Meshram v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanshinath Sandaliya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Coal India Ltd. Vs Rahul Jaiswal

Vishvanath @ Raju Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rampukar Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The Chief Executive Officer Vs Smt. Saraswati Bai