Ramesh Chandra Tripathi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:20645-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 2157 of 2024

¶6

1 - Virendra Mishra S/o Surmun Prasad Mishra Aged About 56 Years R/o Quarter No. 56, Balco Nagar, Korba, Police Station- Balco, District Korba Chhattisgarh. .........Accused.

¶7

2 - Mithlesh Mishra W/o Virendra Mishra Aged About 51 Years R/o Quarter No. 56, Balco Nagar, Korba, Police Station- Balco, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶8

3 - Arti Mishra D/o Virendra Mishra Aged About 25 Years R/o Quarter No. 56, Balco Nagar, Korba, Police Station- Balco, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶9

4 - Puja Mishra D/o Virendra Mishra Aged About 23 Years R/o Quarter No. 56, Balco Nagar, Korba, Police Station- Balco, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶10

5 - Archana Dwivedi W/o Umesh Dwivedi Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Gobariya Buzurg, District Chitrakoot (U. P.)

¶11

6 - Sandhya @ Anju Tiwari W/o Shubham Mishra Aged About 27 Years R/o 542, Near Shankar Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

--- Petitioner(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶15

2 - Station House Officer Mahila Thana Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶16

ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

¶17

3 - Smt. Jyoti Mishra W/o Late Ashok Mishra Aged About 22 Years R/o Belpan Police Station Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶18

--- Respondents

¶19

CRMP No. 3084 of 2025

¶20

1 - Ramesh Chandra Tripathi S/o Shri Anandi Prasad Tripathi Aged About 54 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Belpan, Pura, Takhatpur, DistrictMungeli (C.G.) (Accused Persons)

¶21

2 - Mamta Tripathi W/o Ramesh Chandra Tripathi Aged About 53 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Belpan, Pura, Takhatpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶22

2

¶23

3 - Deepak Tripathi S/o Ramesh Chandra Tripathi Aged About 31 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Belpan, Pura, Takhatpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 4 - Jyoti Mishra W/o Shri Narendra Mishra (Wd/o Late Ashok Mishra ) Aged About 30 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Belpan, Pura, Takhatpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶24

--- Petitioners

¶25

Versus

¶26

1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Katghora, Civil And Revenue District- Korba (C.G.)

¶27

2 - Virendra Kumar Mishra S/o Late Shri S.P. Mishra Aged About 60 Years R/o Sector 6, Balko, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) (Complainant)

¶28

--- Respondents

¶29

--------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners in CRMP 2157/2024 and for respondent No.2 in CRMP 3084/2025	-------------------------------------------- : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Adv.
For Petitioners in CRMP 3084/2025 and for respondent No.2 in CRMP 2157/2024	: Mr. B.S. Rajput, Advocate
For Respondents/State ---------------------------------------------------	: Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate --------------------------------------------

¶30

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

¶31

Order on Board

¶32

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶33

04.05.2026

¶34

Since both the above captioned petitions arise out of allegations and counter allegations made by either of parties, they both are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶35

CRMP No. 2157 of 2024 has been filed the petitioners for quashment of impugned FIR dated 08.10.2022 bearing Crime No. 56/2022 registered at Police Station – Mahila Thana, Bilaspur against them under Sections 498-A, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC and

¶36

3

¶37

subsequent proceedings connected therewith against the petitioners, whereas CRMP No. 3084 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of impugned FIR dated 18.10.2022 bearing Crime No. 0392/2022 registered at Police Station, Katghora, District – Korba against them under Sections 294, 506 and 34 of IPC, impugned charge-sheet and order taking cognizance dated 17.10.2023 passed by the trial Court in Criminal Case No. 2057 of 2023.

¶38

Case of the prosecution in CRMP No. 2157 of 2024, in brief, is that the wife respondent No.3 of deceased (Ashok Mishra) had already deserted the husband prior to his death before 14.06.2022 and she has been staying and living permanently with her parents from 26.12.2021. She had lodged a written complaint before Station House Officer, Mahila Thana, Bilaspur against the petitioners, who are her in-laws, regarding dowry demand. She expressed that her marriage was solemnized on 26.02.2021 with one Ashok Mishra, who died in road accident on 14.06.2022. She alleged that after spending seven days at her in-laws house they begun torturing her and also expressed that her husband was a habitual drinker and through deception giving wrong detail her marriage was settled. It is also written in that application that her husband was a disable person and her mother-in-law blamed that marriage was solemnized without properly welcoming the Baratis and there demand was not properly honored. In October-2021 a compromise was held amongst them thereafter she re-visited in

¶39

4

¶40

her laws where she was tortured alleging that as she was not procreating child so she should surrender to her father-in-law also meanwhile she was beaten by them yet she did not complaint before any police station. She was also alleged that she belongs to a poor character like a concubine even when she visited to see the dead body of her husband, she was not allowed to see her husband, thereafter she could see after police intemperance. Based on the said complaint impugned FIR dated 08.10.2022 bearing Crime No. 56/2022 has registered at Police Station – Mahila Thana, Bilaspur against the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has already been submitted on 23.02.2023 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur.

¶41

Case of the prosecution in CRMP No. 3084 of 2025, in brief, is that the complainant / respondent No.2 Virendra Kumar Mishra made a written complaint before Police Station Katghora, District Korba on 18.10.2022 alleging inter-alia that he is posted at Office of Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Katghora, District - Korba and on 10.10.2022 in evening at about 5.00 pm when he was busy in his official work, at that time petitioners namely Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, Mamta Tripathi, Deepak Tripathi and Jyoti Tripathi came out of office of SDOP Katghora and started abusing in filthy languages, by shouting obscene words due to old domestic dispute between complainant and petitioners, therefore,

¶42

5

¶43

complainant prevented for abusing him in filthy languages and requested for talking peacefully but petitioners became aggressive and told him that they have come to take motorcycle from him which is registered in the name of Jyoti Tripathi. They also threatened that he don't know that they are living in area of Mungeli at any time they can get lift to him and by killing, and throw out anywhere. They were also threatening him that today they are ready to do or die with him. All these acts of the petitioners, threatened the complainant which was insulted him. On the basis of complaint made by the complainant, Police Station Katghora registered FIR under Crime No. 392/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 294, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners. Charge-sheet has been filed before competent Court i.e. learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), wherein learned Trial Court has taken cognizance on dated 17.10.2023 in aforementioned sections of Indian Penal Code. The case is pending for argument on charges/evidence.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioners in CRMP No. 2157 of 2024 submitted that the allegations made by the complainant (respondent No. 3) regarding dowry demand, torture, and cruelty under Section 498-A IPC are unsubstantiated and without any cogent evidence. The complaint appears to be based on vague assertions and contradicts the petitioner's actions. The fact that the complainant had already deserted the deceased husband

¶45

6

¶46

prior to his death on 14.06.2022 and was residing with her parents for several months before lodging the complaint further weakens the allegations. It is further submitted that the complaint, which was lodged on 08.10.2022, was after a considerable delay from the date of the alleged incidents. The complainant’s failure to file a report or approach the authorities earlier despite multiple instances of alleged torture and abuse raises serious doubts about the veracity of her claims.

¶47

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in CRMP No. 3084 of 2025 submitted that the allegations of verbal abuse, threats, and misconduct made by the complainant in the FIR dated 18.10.2022 are completely false and baseless. The petitioners categorically deny that they abused the complainant or made any threats to his life. The supposed exchange of abusive language is not supported by any independent witnesses or evidence. The petitioners assert that there was no criminal intention or malice behind their actions. The issue between the complainant and the petitioners was a personal and domestic dispute, which should not be blown out of proportion into criminal allegations.

¶48

We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused materials available on records in both the cases.

¶49

The complainant (respondent No. 3) in CRMP No. 2157 of 2024 has made serious allegations of dowry demand, torture, and cruelty against the petitioners, who are her parents and relatives

¶50

7

¶51

of her deceased husband. However, it is crucial to observe that the complainant had already deserted her husband well before his death, residing with her parents since 26.12.2021, and only filed the complaint on 08.10.2022. The complainant's account is inconsistent, and the allegations appear to be based on general statements and vague claims rather than solid, corroborated evidence. The delay in lodging the complaint and the contradictory nature of the allegations strongly indicate that the FIR may have been filed with some ulterior motive or personal vendetta. There is no prima facie evidence to support the allegations of dowry demand or cruelty, and the case, therefore, lacks merit.

¶52

The complainant in CRMP No. 3084 of 2025 (Virendra Kumar Mishra) has accused the petitioners of abusing him and threatening him over a dispute regarding a motorcycle. While the petitioners have denied the allegations, the facts indicate that this is yet another case of personal animosity and family dispute. The alleged threats and abuse have not been corroborated by any independent witnesses or substantial evidence. The FIR in this case appears to be a product of a family feud and not a genuine criminal case. The allegations of criminal intimidation and abusive language are unsubstantiated and do not meet the threshold required to maintain the proceedings. The delay in filing the complaint and the lack of supporting evidence further cast doubt on the credibility of the case.

¶53

8

¶54

Upon careful consideration of the facts and the allegations in both cases, it is clear that the complaints in these matters are based on mutual personal disputes, with serious inconsistencies in the claims made by both parties. The allegations and counterallegations between the parties seem to have escalated into criminal complaints without any substantial evidence to support the charges.

¶55

The allegations of dowry demand, cruelty, and torture made by the complainant in CRMP No. 2157 of 2024 are not supported by any solid evidence. The complainant had deserted her husband well before his death and has failed to substantiate her claims with corroborative evidence. Given the delay in filing the FIR, the contradictions in the complainant's version of events, and the lack of concrete evidence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of the legal process. Therefore, the FIR dated 08.10.2022 (Crime No. 56/2022) registered at Mahila Thana, Bilaspur and all subsequent proceedings arising out of same are hereby quashed .

¶56

The allegations of verbal abuse and threats made by the complainant in CRMP No. 3084 of 2025 are similarly unsubstantiated. The dispute appears to be a result of personal animosities, and there is no independent evidence to support the allegations of criminal intimidation or abuse. The petitioners have denied the charges, and the case lacks merit. Therefore, the FIR dated 18.10.2022 (Crime No. 392/2022) registered against the

¶57

9

¶58

petitioners at Police Station, Katghora, District - Korba and all subsequent proceedings arising out of same are also quashed .

¶59

In light of the above findings and conclusions, both the impugned FIRs and all subsequent proceedings in CRMP No. 2157 of 2024 and CRMP No. 3084 of 2025 are quashed. The petitioners are hereby discharged from all criminal liability in relation to the allegations made in these cases.

¶60

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

¶61

Chandra

Ramesh Chandra Tripathi v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Tripathi v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Banshidhar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Priyanka Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bablu Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikash Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh