Allowed

Manish Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC26 Apr 2026CRMP/2533/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three petitions sought quashing of two cross-FIRs and ensuing proceedings arising from a violent family confrontation linked to a matrimonial/dowry dispute. Holding that allegations were unsubstantiated counter-accusations, the court quashed both FIRs and set aside the consequential criminal cases.

What did the court decide?

FIRs Crime Nos. 103/2021 and 104/2021 and consequential Criminal Case Nos. 870/2022 and 856/2022 set aside/quashed.

Manish Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Dowry and Cruelty | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

2026:CGHC:19322-DB

¶3

ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2533 of 2025

¶6

1 - Manish Sharma S/o Shri Omprakash Sharma Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Baba Ramdev Ward, Bemetara, Police Station And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Rajesh Sharma S/o Shri Omprakash Sharma Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Baba Ramdev Ward, Bemetara, Police Station And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

--- Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Pritesh Tamrakar S/o Shri Rajendra Tamrakar Aged About 28 Years R/o Gudheli Chowk, Kandarka, Police Station Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

--- Respondents

¶13

CRMP No. 2455 of 2025

¶14

Aarti Sharma W/o Shri Rajesh Sharma Aged About 30 Years R/o Baba Ramdev Ward No. 11, Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶15

--- Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationBemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶18

2 - Sushila Sharma W/o Shri Omprakash Sharma Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Bemetara, P.S. Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶19

--- Respondents

¶20

CRMP No. 1125 of 2026

¶21

Pritesh @ Pitesh Tamrakar S/o Rajendra Tamrakar Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Gudheli, Police Outpost Kandarka, Police Station Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh (Accused)

--- Petitioner

Versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The S H O, Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (Prosecution)

¶26

2 - Sushila Sharma W/o Omprakash Sharma Aged About 55 Years R/o Baba Ramdev Ward No. 11, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisarh (Complainant)

¶27

--- Respondents

¶28

For Petitioners in CRMP No. 2533/2025 & for respondent No.2 in CRMP No. 1125/2026	: Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate
For Petitioner in CRMP No. 2455/2025	: Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate
For Petitioner in	: Mr. Ujjwal Agrawal,
CRMP No. 1125/2026 &
for respondent No.2 in CRMP No. 2533/2025
For State/respondent No.1 in allpetitions	: Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. Government Advocate

¶29

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶30

Order on Board

¶31

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

¶32

27.04.2026

¶33

1 Since all these three above captioned petitions arise out of same incident, though from different Crime Nos. lodged at same police station, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶34

2 CRMP No. 2533 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of BNSS with the following prayers :-

¶35

“I. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and may kindly quash the

¶36

¶37

charges framed under section 294, 506, 323, 324, 201, 34 of Indian Penal Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bemetara District Bemetara Chhattisgarh filed by the petitioners.

¶38

II. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR No. 104/2021 punishable under section 294, 506, 323, 324, 201, 34 of the code registered at Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶39

III. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceeding initiated in the criminal case no.856/2022, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶40

IV. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheet bearing No. 258/2022 filed on dated 01.06.2022 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh under section 294, 506, 323, 324, 201, 34 of IPC.

¶41

V. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order dated 31.01.2024 (Annexure P-3 & P-2) whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh has framed charges against the present petitioners under Section 294, 506-B, 323, 324, 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶42

VI. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly grant any other reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

¶43

¶44

3 CRMP No. 2455 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS with the following prayers :-

¶45

“(i) set-aside/ quash the impugned First Information Report Dated bearing FIR No. 103/2021 dated 09/02/2021, under sections 294, 323, 452, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered in Police Station Bemetara, District-Bemetara C.G [ANNEXURE P/1].

¶46

(ii) set-aside/quash entire impugned Chargesheet/ Final Report dated 01/06/2022 registered/filled against the petitioner in crime no. 103/2021 in the interest of justice [ANNEXURE P/2].

¶47

(iii) set-aside/ quash the impugned order dated 04/06/2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara, District-Bemetara whereby cognizance has been taken and case was registered as Criminal Case 893/2022 [ANNEXURE P/3].

¶48

(iv) grant any other order(s), deemed fit & just in the facts &circumstances of the case in favour of petitioner.”

¶49

4 CRMP No. 1125 of 2026 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS with the following prayers :-

¶50

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash :-

¶51

i. First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 103/2021 dated 09.02.2021 registered at Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara, CG. for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 294, 506, 323, 34 of IPC;

¶52

¶53

ii. Charge sheet bearing No. 257/2022 dated 01.06.2022 filed for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 294, 506, 323, 324, 34 of IPC against the petitioner.

¶54

iii. Order dated 04.06.2022 taking cognizance of the aforementioned charge sheet for the aforesaid offences;

¶55

iv. Order framing charge dated 08.08.2025 for the offence punishable under (Binjured) Sections 294, 452, 506 II, 32463 read with 34 of IPC and the charges framed for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner; and

¶56

v. All consequential proceedings of Criminal Case No. 870/2022, parties being State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Pritesh and another pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bemetara, District Bemetarą CG.

¶57

5 Brief facts of the case are that on the complaint of the complainant/Respondent No.2 in CRMP No. 2455/2025 and CRMP No. 1125/2026, namely, Sushila Sharma, an FIR bearing Crime No. 103/2021 was registered on 09.02.2021 at about 02:45 PM at Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara, CG, against the petitioner in CRMP No. 1125/2026, namely, Pritesh Tamrakar and the petitioner in CRMP No. 2455/2025 i.e. co-accused Aarti Sharma. It was alleged by the complainant that her elder son, Rajesh Sharma, was married to the co-accused, Aarti Sharma, in the year 2018. It was further alleged that the co-accused Aarti Sharma had initiated a proceeding regarding dowry against the complainant and other family members, which was pending

¶58

¶59

consideration before the competent Court. It was specifically alleged that on 09.02.2021, the complainant was alone in her house along with the 02 years old grand-daughter and her both sons had gone to the Court to meet their lawyer, and her husband was in the garage. At the same time, accused Pritesh Tamrakar alongwith co-accused Aarti Sharma, knocked on the door and barged into the house and thereafter assaulted her, tore her blouse, abused her using filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences. It has also been alleged that when accused Pritesh Tamrakar, saw the sons of the complainant entering the house, assaulted the complainant and her sons using a knife, leading to injuries to the complainant as well as her sons. Based on the written complaint of Sushila Sharma, on 09.02.2021, an FIR bearing Crime No. 103/2021 was registered at Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara, CG. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 294, 506, 323, 34 of IPC against accused Pritesh Tamrakar and co-accused Aarti Sharma.

¶60

6 Thereafter, the wheels of investigation began to run, and the police got the complainant and her sons examined by the doctor, seized the weapon of offence, arrested the accused persons, recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet bearing No 257/2022 on 01.06.2022 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Bemetara, District Bemetara, CG. for the offence punishable

¶61

¶62

under Sections 452, 294, 506, 323, 324, 34 of IPC against accused Pritesh Tamrakar and co-accused Aarti Sharma.

¶63

7 The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bemetara, District Bemetara, CG., vide order dated 04.06.2022, took cognizance of the offence and registered the case bearing Criminal Case No. 870/2022, parties being State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Pritesh and another. Thereafter, vide order dated 08.08.2025, charges were framed for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 452, 506 II, 324 (3 injured) read with 34 of IPC and vide order dated 09.03.2026, the matter has been fixed for 19.05.2026 for prosecution evidence.

¶64

8 Being aggrieved by the same, CRMP No. 2455/2025 has been filed by the petitioner Aarti Sharma and CRMP No. 1125/2026 has been filed by the petitioner Pritesh Tamrakar.

¶65

9 On the very same day i.e. on 09.02.2021 at about 02:50 PM, at same police station i.e. Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara, CG. on the complaint of the Pritesh Tamrakar, an FIR bearing Crime No.104/2021 was registered against the accused persons namely, Manish Sharma and Rajesh Sharma, who are son of the complainant Sushila Sharma for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 of IPC with the allegation that on the fateful day, the complainant – Pritesh Tamrakar had gone to Bemetara Court along with Aarti Sharma from where he went to Aarti Sharma's matrimonial home. It has been further alleged that when Aarti Sharma went inside the

¶66

¶67

house of accused persons, accused Manish Sharma and Rajesh Sharma came outside and started abusing him filthily and also threatened him of death and falsely implicating in a criminal case. Thereafter, the complainant was brought inside the house and was assaulted with hands and fists, badminton a knife, resulting in grievous injuries on his hand and the back side of head. Thereafter, the police conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet bearing No. 258/2022 against the accused persons, namely, Manish Sharma and Raj Sharma, for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 324, 201, 34 of IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara on 01.06.2022 and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and has framed charges against the petitioner vide order dated 31.01.2024.

¶68

10 Being aggrieved by the same, CRMP No. 2533/2025 has been filed by the petitioners Manish Sharma and Rajesh Sharma.

¶69

11 Learned counsel for the petitioner in CRMP No. 1125/2026 (Pritesh Tamrakar) contends that the allegations made by the complainant Sushila Sharma are false and fabricated. It is submitted that the petitioner, Pritesh Tamrakar, along with the coaccused Aarti Sharma, was wrongfully implicated in the case due to a personal dispute concerning the dowry case initiated by Aarti Sharma. He asserts that the petitioner was assaulted by the complainant’s sons, Rajesh Sharma and Manish Sharma, and the injuries he sustained were a result of the counterattack by the

¶70

¶71

complainants. It is argued that there was no criminal intent on the part of the petitioner, and the assault was provoked by the actions of the complainant's family.

¶72

12 Learned counsel for the Petitioner in CRMP No. 2455/2025 (Aarti Sharma) submits that the charges against her are baseless and stem from a personal vendetta due to the ongoing dowry dispute. He further submitted that presence of Aarti Sharma at the complainant’s house was purely incidental and that no assault or threat was made by her. It is further contended that the complainant’s allegations against her should be seen in the context of the ongoing matrimonial dispute, and no evidence has been presented to substantiate the claims of violence and injury made by the complainant.

¶73

13 The facts of the case involve multiple cross-allegations made by the complainant and the petitioners. The complainant, Sushila Sharma, has accused the petitioners (Pritesh Tamrakar and Aarti Sharma) of unlawfully entering her house, assaulting her and her sons, using a knife, and causing injuries. In response, the petitioners have claimed that they were assaulted by the complainant’s sons, Manish Sharma and Rajesh Sharma. The police have completed the investigation and filed charge sheets in both cases, and charges have been framed against all parties involved.

¶74

14 The evidence, including medical reports, witness testimonies, and the sequence of events, suggests that there was a violent

¶75

¶76

confrontation between the parties, stemming from an ongoing family dispute, particularly regarding the dowry case.

¶77

15 While both parties have presented plausible claims of assault and threat, the evidence needs to be weighed carefully to determine the veracity of the allegations and counter-allegations.

¶78

16 Both petitions involve serious allegations and counter-allegations of assault, threat, and injury. The incidents, although occurring on the same day and involving the same individuals, are intertwined by the ongoing matrimonial dispute and dowry-related issues.

¶79

17 After careful examination of the facts, submissions, and the legal position, it is clear that both parties have made serious allegations against each other, and the events in question are part of a broader family dispute, including a dowry-related matter. However, the impugned FIRs (Crime No. 103/2021 and Crime No. 104/2021) do not appear to have sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges, and the proceedings arising from them appear to be based on cross-allegations with no concrete proof of criminal intent or substantial harm.

¶80

18 The principle of "settlement of disputes in matrimonial or family disputes" must be observed, especially when there is a significant likelihood of the parties being embroiled in ongoing disputes which might be exaggerated in the heat of the moment. In the absence of concrete evidence or consistent testimony to support the allegations of violent criminality, it is appropriate to invoke the

¶81

¶82

judicial principle of quashing FIRs under the provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), where the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.

¶83

19 In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an FIR can be quashed if the allegations made in it do not constitute any offense or if the FIR is based on a false or malicious complaint. The Court ruled that "where the allegations are per se frivolous or the proceedings are an abuse of the process of law, the Court has the inherent power to quash the FIR".

¶84

20 In Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Arora (2013) 3 SCC 330, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that "it is well within the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings in cases where the allegations made in the FIR are vague, improbable, or do not constitute any offense under the law".

¶85

21 In Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI (2015) 4 SCC 609, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that "in case of a false or frivolous FIR, or when there is no prima facie case against the accused, the High Court is empowered to quash the proceedings" under Section 482 CrPC.

¶86

22 In the present case, after a detailed consideration of the allegations and counter-allegations, it appears that the FIRs registered against the petitioners are based on disputed facts that

¶87

¶88

are not substantiated by solid evidence. The complainant’s version is contradicted by the defense version, and no independent evidence or witnesses have corroborated the claims of unlawful entry, assault, or use of a weapon. The circumstances of the case, coupled with the lack of substantial evidence, suggest that the FIRs were filed out of personal animosity and as part of the ongoing family dispute.

¶89

23 Given these circumstances and the judicial precedents cited above, all these three petitions are allowed.

¶90

24 The impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 103/2021 registered at Police Station, Bemetara and all consequential proceedings arising out of said FIR i.e. Criminal Case No. 870/2022 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemerata, District Bemerata (C.G.) are hereby set aside.

¶91

25 The impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 104/2021 registered at Police Station, Bemetara and all consequential proceedings arising out of said FIR i.e. Criminal Case No. 856/2022 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemerata, District Bemerata (C.G.) are also hereby set aside.

¶92

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

¶93

Chandra

Manish Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaiyan Kumar Meena Vs Food Corporation of India

Manish Kumar Yadav Vs Food Corporation of India

Aasif Husain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Harsh Roadlines Private Limited Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Limited

Mohit Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sadhram Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh