Dismissed¶47

Surit Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jan 2026CRMP/80/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; CRMP No. 80 of 2026; decision 12-01-2026; Ramesh Sinha CJ (author), Ravindra Kumar Agrawal J; quashing of FIR/chargesheet/cognizance order; Section 528 BNSS; Section 482 CrPC; Sections 108 & 3(5) BNS 2023 (abetment of suicide); suicidal/note; State Examiner of Questioned Document; JMFC Raipur; P.S. Gobra Nawapara; Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315; no mini trial; prima facie cognizable offence; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None. The petition was dismissed; the cognizance order dated 04-09-2025 passed by the JMFC, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 31231/2025 stands, and the FIR No. 245/2025, chargesheet No. 220/2025 and consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioners were not quashed. ¶47

Surit Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS to quash the impugned cognizance order dated 04-09-2025, FIR No. 245/2025, chargesheet No. 220/2025 and the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 31231/2025 against the petitioners. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

No sufficient ground exists to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 31231/2025 or to set aside the impugned order dated 04-09-2025 taking cognizance against the petitioners; consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

Since the suicide note named the petitioners and other accused as having created the situation under which the deceased committed suicide, its contents were reiterated in the statements of witnesses (Smt. Poonam Jain, Smt. Aruna Jain, Sourabh @ Sintu Jain, Sunil Jain) and authorship was confirmed by the State Examiner of Questioned Document; it cannot be said there is no allegation of abetment against the petitioners, and prima facie sufficient material exists in the chargesheet for taking cognizance and proceeding with the case.

¶42

Key takeaways

While exercising quashing powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), the High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial; what is required to be considered is the nature of accusations and allegations in the FIR and whether they prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence.ratio¶46
From perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet, prima facie a cognizable offence is made out; the petition does not fall in any category warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), hence no ground exists for quashing the FIR, charge-sheet and criminal proceedings.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing — inherent jurisdiction (S. 528 BNSS / S. 482 CrPC) — petition dismissed. Accused in Criminal Case No. 31231/2025 arising out of FIR No. 245/2025 (P.S. Gobra Nawapara, Distt. Raipur) for offences under Sections 108 & 3(5) BNS, 2023 over the 30-07-2024 suicide of Saurabh Jain by hanging, the petitioners challenged the JMFC, Raipur order dated 04-09-2025 taking cognizance, and sought quashing of the FIR, chargesheet No. 220/2025 and criminal proceedings, contending there was no allegation of instigation and only a seized suicide note implicated them. Held (per Ramesh Sinha, CJ): contents of the suicide note naming the petitioners were reiterated in witness statements and authorship was confirmed by the State Examiner of Questioned Document; prima facie sufficient material existed in the chargesheet for cognizance. Following Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Court held that at the quashing stage it conducts no mini trial and examines only whether FIR averments prima facie disclose a cognizable offence; on perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet such an offence was prima facie made out and no ground for quashing existed. Petition dismissed.

2026:CGHC:1596-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 80 of 2026

¶6

1 - Surit Jain S/o Late Shri Harishchand Jain, Aged About 66 Years, R/o House No. 190, Ward No. 01, Bus Stand, Near Deendayal Chowk, Gobra Navapara, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Abhay Jain @ Dau S/o Late Shri Gyanchand Jain, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Sadar Road Ward No. 03, Gobra Navapara, G.E. Road Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gobra Nawapara, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Mahendra Jain @ Chandulal S/o Gulaab Chand Jain, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Ward No. 5, Station Road Nawapara, Gobra P.S. Gobranawapara, Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr. Prgalbha Sharma, Advocate. For State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

¶15

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

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

¶18

12-01-2026

¶19

Digitally signed byMOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.01.14 11:32:16 +0530

¶20

¶21

Heard Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent.

¶22

The present CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 04-09-2025 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur has taken cognizance of the offence in Criminal Case No. 31231/2025 with respect to chargesheet No.220/2025 in Crime No.245/2025 for the offence under Sections 108 & 3 (5) of BNS, 2023.

¶23

The petitioners have made the following prayer in the present petition:-

¶24

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS and in exercise thereof call for the records if necessary, and further be pleased:

¶25

a) To kindly quash the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) whereby the learned JMFC, Raipur, Distt.Rajpur (C.G.) has taken cognizance of the chargesheet and registered the impugned Criminal case No. 31231/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Mayank Challani & Ors.) against the present petitioners;

¶26

b) To kindly quash the impugned FIR No. 245/2025 dated 04.07.2025 and the consequent charge sheet No. 220/2025 dated 21.08.2025 filed by the Police Station Gobra

¶27

¶28

Nawapara, Distt. Raipur (C.G.), for the alleged offence U/s. 108 & 3 (5) of BNS (Annexure P/2) (colly) against the petitioner; and further criminal proceedings under it;

¶29

c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in light of facts and circumstances may also be granted to the petitioner in interest of justice.”

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are accused persons in Criminal Case No.31231/2025 arising out of Crime No.245/2025 registered at Police Station Gobra Nawapara, Distt. Raipur (C.G.), for the offence U/s. 108 & 3 (5) of BNS. It is alleged in the FIR that on 30-07-2024 about 10:45 AM deceased Saurabh Jain had committed suicide by hanging himself in his house. The suicidal note was seized in which the present petitioners along with other accused persons have been held responsible for cheating the deceased and the FIR has been registered against five accused persons and after investigation chargesheet was filed.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is no allegation against the petitioners that they have abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. In the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased there was no allegation against the petitioners that they committed offence or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is only allegation that the petitioners have sold the property of the deceased in some less value which cannot be said to be abetment or instigation to cause him to commit suicide. There should be some active

¶32

¶33

participation or material with respect to the instigation, however, the same are missing and only on the basis of suicidal note allegedly seized from the spot the petitioners have been implicated as accused persons in the offence. There was no nexus with the death of the deceased with that of any allegation against the petitioners that they pressurized him in any manner. From the FIR it clearly reveals that the deceased was in habit of playing gambling and indebted huge amount as he loss the same in gambling. Therefore, there is no prima facie material to take cognizance of the offence against the petitioners and the entire proceeding against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that there of overwhelming evidence against the petitioners that they along with other co-accused person pressurized the deceased and they sold his property in less amount and not paid the entire amount to him by which he was in difficulty to repay the amount of concerned persons. He would further submit that although the copy of suicidal note has not been annexed in the petition, however, from the statement of the witnesses contents of the suicidal note was reflected in which the petitioners and other accused persons have been named in the suicidal note. The said suicidal note was written by the deceased himself which has been reflected from the report of State Examiner of Questioned Document. Therefore, the evidence available on record cannot be doubted at this stage which is very inception of the criminal case and the proceeding against the petitioners cannot be quashed holding that

¶35

¶36

there isno evidence against him to proceed with the trial, therefore, in view of the material available against the petitioners in charge sheet the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition.

¶38

True it is that in the present petition the suicidal note written by the deceased is not annexed. However, from the statement of Smt. Poonam Jain who is wife of the deceased contents of the suicidal note was reiterated which reads as under:-

¶39

“esjs ifr lkSjHk dk fy[kk gqvk ,d lqlkbZV uksV ?kj ij feyk ftles vLIk"V v{kjksa es fy[kk Fkk fd mldh ekSr dk ?kj okyksa dk dksbZ gkFk ugh gS blesa vHk; nkm] ea;d NYykuh] thrq caxkuh] lqjhr tSu] fodkl caxkuh ds }kjk esjs edku nqdku dks 755000 esa cspdj de es jftLVªh djkds esjs fdlkuks dk cpr 980000 ugha fn;k ftls eSa okil djus ds pDdj es ijs’kku jgrk gwW vkSj ;g dne mBk jgk gwW bl ?kVuk ds ;s yksxks ftEesnkj gS fy[kkA”

¶40

From the statement of other witnesses Smt. Aruna Jain, Sourabh @ Sintu Jain, Sunil Jain also the same contents are there against the petitioners. The said suicidal note was written by the deceased as per the report of State Examiner of Questioned Document and the copy of the report is also annexed in the petition at page No.357. When in the suicidal note it has been alleged that the present petitioners as well as the other accused persons have created a situation for the deceased under which he committed suicide it cannot be said that there is no allegation against the petitioners that they have not committed any offence or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Prima facie there

¶41

¶42

are sufficient material available in the charge sheet for taking cognizance of the offence and to proceed with the case against the petitioners.

¶43

The Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. The Supreme Court has emphasised that though the court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit.

¶44

In the instant case, from perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. The present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC (Now Section 528 of the BNSS) to quash the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and criminal proceedings. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and criminal proceedings. Even otherwise, it is a settled position of law that while exercising powers under Section 482,

¶45

¶46

CrPC, the High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. What is required to be considered at that stage is the nature of accusations and allegations in the FIR and whether the averments/allegations in the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of the cognizable offence or not.

¶47

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusing the documents appended with the petition and also considering the contents of the FIR and the chargesheet, we do not find any sufficient ground to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.31231/2025 and to set aside the impugned order dated 04-09-2025 taking cognizance against the petitioners. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶51

Aadil

Surit Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surit Jain v. 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

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Nitin Limbu @ Munku Nepali

Parmanand Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhanai Uraon Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Tiwari Vs Pooja Gupta

Santosh Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Surendra Singh Bagga Vs M.S. Akhtar