Chattisgarh High Court
Tej Prakash Khunte @ Chhotu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 May, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1 / 21
2026:CGHC:20931-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1081 of 2026
1 - Tej Prakash Khunte @ Chhotu S/o. Suresh Kumar Khunte Aged
About 28 Years R/o. Village Devermaal, Post Devri, P.S. Sakti, District
Sakti (C.G.)
2 - Suresh Kumar Khunte @ Nanki S/o. Bharat Ram Aged About 56
Years R/o. Village Devermaal, Post Devi, P.S. Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.)
3 - Smt. Uma Bai W/o. Suresh Kumar Khunte Aged About 47 Years R/o.
Village Devermaal, Post Devri, P.S. Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.)
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer of Police
Station Balco Nagar, Korba District- Korba Chhattisgarh.
2 - Smt. Manju Khunte W/o. Tej Prakash Khunte Aged About 31 Years
R/o. Shivnagar, Rugmada, Near Jai Stambh, P.S. Balco Nagar, District-
Korba Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate
For State / Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Rajani Soren, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per, Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH ASHUTOSH MISHRA MISHRA Date:
2026.05.07 16:22:22 +0530 2 / 21 05/05/2026
1. Vide order dated 21.04.2026 this Court referred the matter for mediation. As per the report dated 28.04.2026, the petitioner No.1 has deposited Rs.50,000/- with the Mediation Center and as per the report of Mediation Center dated 28.04.2026, the mediation between the parties have failed.
2. Heard Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, learned counsel for the Petitioners.
Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent No.1/State and Ms. Rajani Soren, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.
3. The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief(s)-
(a) To quash the order taking cognizance i.e. 09/03/2026 against the Petitioners under Section 85 and 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Case 1379 / 2026.
(b) To quash the Criminal Case No.1379/2026 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, Chhattisgarh State Vs. Tej Prakash Khnute & Others in connection with crime No.91/2026 registered by Police Station Balco, Korba (C.G.).
(c) To quash the Final Report No.88/2026 dated 08/03/2026 which is filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba against the Petitioners in connection with crime No.91/2026 registered by Police Station Balco 3 / 21 Nagar, Korba on 17/02/2026.
(d) Pass any other further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
4. The brief facts of this case as projected by the petitioners are that the Petitioner No. 1 is Husband of the Complainant (Respondent No. 2), Petitioner No. 2 is Father in Law and Petitioner No. 3 is Mother in law of the Complainant (Respondent No. 2). The allegations made by the Complainant (Respondent No. 2) in F.I.R. are that the marriage between Complainant and Petitioner No. 1 (Husband) was solemnized on 16/02/2023 as per the rituals of their society. Prior to their marriage, the Petitioner No. 1 got to know about savings of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the bank account of complainant and asked her to give the amount to him. The complainant refused to give him the amount stating that the amount is saved for her marriage by her parents. The Petitioner No. 1 refused to marry with complainant just day before their marriage and after many efforts he agreed to marry her. Petitioners started harassing the complainant for dowry after one month of marriage i.e. 16/03/2023. Complainant tried to commit suicide after being harassed by Petitioners. Petitioners came to house of complainant and asked her not to record her statement before Police Station Darri about the attempt to suicide incident and told her that Petitioners will take good care of her. Upon that assurance, complainant went to the house of Petitioners and lived for 2 months there. Again Petitioners started harassing the complainant 4 / 21 and left her to her parental house at Rugmada.
5. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that the complainant lodged a complaint before Mahila Paramarsh Kendra, Korba. A compromise was done and Petitioner No. 1 took complainant to his home. They lived well for 2-3 months but again Petitioner No. 1 started harassing the complainant for demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- cash, car and more things as dowry. He again sent her to her parental house and she lived in her parental house for 8-9 months. Thereafter she lodged a complaint before Mahila Thana Sakti and again a compromise was done between them. The Petitioner No. 1 took her to his home and she started a job at a private Hospital in Shivrinarayan. Whenever the complainant goes to the house of Petitioner No. 1, he checks her mobile, whatsapp messages, calls and accounts. Petitioners No. 1 also made allegation upon her that she is having illicit relation with a doctor. On 14/04/2025 the Petitioner No. 1 left the complainant at Shivrinarayan. Due to harassment of Petitioner No. 1, the complainant left her job. On 18/12/2025 the Petitioner No. 1 met the complainant at Sakti, Dadai and asked her to take all her jewelries and other things to his home. She went to her matrimonial house and lived there for 1 month. On 16/01/2026 again Petitioners started harassing her and kept her jewelries and other things with them and demanded Rs. 8,00,000/-, gold chain, car from her parents. Petitioner No. 1 also threatened her that he will viral their private videos and after that she again went to her parents.
5 / 21
6. Further it is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 21/01/2026 the complainant called her father in law and told him that she wanted to live with them. The mother in law of complainant asked her to come there. She went to Dadai Bus Stand and called Petitioner No. 1 to receive her. Petitioner No. 1 came to Bus Stand, demanded for dowry and when demand was not fulfilled, he slapped her. The complainant told her family about the incident and on 23/01/2026 a society meeting was conducted at Petitioner's house. In society meeting the in laws of complainant misbehaved with her parents consequence to which the meeting failed. Petitioners are threatening the complainant that she cannot do anything against them.
7. The F.I.R. was registered on 17/02/2026 by Police Station Balco, Korba on written complaint of Complainant (Respondent No. 2) registered as crime No. 91/2026 for the offences punishable u/s 85 and
3. (5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against Petitioners. The Petitioners made an application for grant of anticipatory bail before Learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Korba bearing No. B.A. No. 114/2026. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Korba granted anticipatory bail to the Petitioners on 28/02/2026.
8. The Final Report No. 88/2026 dated 08/03/2026 has been filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba against Petitioners. Final Report was filed in connection of F.I.R. No. 91/2026 which was registered by Police Station Balco, Korba on 17/02/2026 under Section 85 and 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against Petitioners. The 6 / 21 Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba took cognizance in the matter under Section 85 and 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 on 09/03/2026 and directed for registration of criminal case against them. Hence the petition.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have never demanded dowry from the Complainant and her parents. He would further submit that the F.I.R. has been registered only to harass Petitioners and it is abuse of process of law. It is submitted that the Petitioner No. 1 (Husband) and complainant (Respondent No. 2) met with each other while working in Mobile Medical Unit of Mukhya Mantri Shahri Slum Swasthya Yojna, Nagar Nigam Korba. Petitioner No. 1 was Pathologist and the complainant was N.H.M. Nurse. They liked each other and after consent of their family they got married on 16/02/2023. After marriage they both started living at Korba due to their jobs. After some time of marriage, the complainant went to her parental house and made a complaint before Mahila Thana, Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Korba in the year 2023. The Petitioner No. 1 received a notice from Parivar Paramarsh Kendra for counseling. He appeared in the counseling and he was ready to take complainant back to his house. The complainant also agreed to go back to her matrimonial house. It is further submitted that on 05/05/2024 the Petitioner No. 1 took the complainant to Chhitpahariya for a wedding of her relative. On request of complainant, the Petitioner No.1 took her to her parental house in Sakti on 15/05/2024 and left her there. When the Complainant went to her parental house, she also took the qualification certificates of 7 / 21 Petitioner No. 1 along with her without his consent. It is further submitted that in the month of October 2024, the Complainant joined at Maa Shabri Multispeciality Hospital as a nurse. In the month of December 2024 when Complainant lived around 6-7 months in her parental house, the Petitioners along with their relatives went to parental home of complainant at Rungra, Korba to take her. The mother of complainant refused to let complainant go with them, misbehaved with Petitioners and threatened them of filing complaint before police. Thereafter, the Petitioner No. 1 made an application before Police Station Sakti intimating about the above incident. In the month of January 2025, a counseling was conducted upon application of Petitioner No. 1 at Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Sakti and complainant was called there. The counseling was successful but complainant did not go with him immediately. On 12/01/2025 the Petitioner No. 1 went parental home of complainant to take her. She came with him and lived only 3-4 days with him and again she left Petitioner's home and went to Shivrinarayan for her job. It is further submitted that on 13/04/2025 again Petitioner No. 1 went to parental house of complainant to take her. She lived only 1 day with Petitioner No. 1 and again left him. On 12/05/2025 again Petitioner No. 1 went to Shivrinarayan to take her but she refused to live with him. On 18/12/2025 complainant left her job at Shivrinarayan and came to the Petitioners house at Devermaal and gave certificates of Petitioner No. 1. The marriage was solemnized on 16/02/2023 and the Complainant left the house of the Petitioners on 16/01/2026. She lived with the Petitioners for only 3 years and she had 8 / 21 not come back from her parental house despite the Petitioner No. 1 tried to convince her repeatedly. During 3 years, she repeatedly left her matrimonial home and lived at Shivrinarayan and with her parents at Korba. The allegations are bald and inherently improbable. The order taking cognizance is wholly illegal and has been passed in a mechanical manner without recording any prima facie satisfaction regarding the ingredients of the alleged offence. Thus, the prosecution discloses a case of ordinary matrimonial discord being given a criminal colour after an ordinate delay, amounting to abuse of process and causing grave prejudice to the petitioners. Therefore, the petition may be allowed and the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings of the criminal case be quashed.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 oppose the petition and submits that the FIR in question was registered on the basis of a written complaint made by respondent No.2 alleging cruelty by the petitioners. It is submitted that upon receipt of the complaint, the police conducted investigation in accordance with law and, after recording statements of the complainant and other witnesses and collecting relevant material, found a prima facie case to be made out against the petitioners. Consequently, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Korba. Learned State counsel would further submit that the allegations levelled in the FIR and the charge-sheet disclose the commission of cognizable offence under Sections 85, 3(5)of BNS, which require appreciation of evidence and determination 9 / 21 of disputed questions of fact, and the same cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 of BNSS. It is further submitted that the defence raised by the petitioners, are matter which may be examined by the trial Court during trial and do not, by themselves, constitute a ground for quashment of the criminal proceedings at the threshold and submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents appended with the petition.
12. At the outset, it would be appropriate to consider the scope of interference in charge-sheet filed by the police against accused in extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC/528 of the BNSS.
13. In the matter of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, 1998 (5) SCC 749 the Supreme Court has held that the accused can approach the High Court either under Section 482 of the CrPC/528 of BNSS or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him.
14. The Supreme Court in the mater of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to 10 / 21 prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC/528 of BNSS should be exercised, which are as under: -
"102. 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 extraordinary 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 channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) 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 11 / 21 entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the 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.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do notconstitute 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.
(5) 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 12 / 21 ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) 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.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its 13 / 21 whim or caprice."
15. The principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) has been followed recently by the Supreme Court in the matters of Google India Private Limited v. Visaka Industries, (2020) 4 SCC 162, Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2020) 13 SCC 435 and Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2019) 18 SCC 191. The Supreme Court in Google India Private Limited (supra), explained the scope of dictum of Bhajan Lal's case (supra) that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and "that too in the rarest of rare cases" as indicated in paragraph 103 therein of the report.
16. Having noticed the scope of interference by this Court in the petition relating to quashment of FIR/charge-sheet, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that in the impugned charge-sheet, the petitioners have been charged for offence under Sections 85, 3(5) of BNS.
17. Chapter XXA of the IPC deals with offence of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband. Section 498A of the IPC defines the offence of cruelty as under:-
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be 14 / 21 punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
18. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to establish offence under Section 498-A of the IPC/85 of BNS, the prosecution must establish-
(i) That, woman must be married;
(ii) She has been subjected to cruelty or harassment and
(iii) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by relative 15 / 21 of her husband.
19. The word 'cruelty' within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC has been explained in Explanation appended to Section 498A of the IPC. It consists of two clauses namely clause (a) and clause (b). To attract Section 498A of the IPC/ 85 of BNS, it must be established that cruelty or harassment to the wife to coerce her or cause bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide or the harassment was to compel her to fulfill illegal demand for dowry. It is not every type of harassment or cruelty that would attract Section 498A of the IPC/85 of BNS. Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC contemplates harassment of woman to coerce or any relation of her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. The complainant if wants to come within the ambit of Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC, she can succeed if it is proved that there was an unlawful demand by thehusband or any of his relatives with respect to money or of some valuable security.
20. The Supreme Court in the matter of Priya Vrat Singh and others v. Shyam Ji Sahai, (2008) 8 SCC 232 considered the issue of delay in lodging the complaint as well as role that has been ascribed to the accused therein and quashed the complaint holding the delay of two years in lodging FIR to be fatal and further held that no role has been ascribed to the petitioner/accused therein. It was observed as under:-
"8. Further it is pointed out that the allegation of alleged demand for dowry was made for the first time 16 / 21 in December, 1994. In the complaint filed, the allegation is that the dowry torture was made some times in 1992. It has not been explained as to why for more than two years no action was taken.
9. Further, it appears that in the complaint petition apart from the husband, the mother of the husband, the subsequently married wife, husband's mother's sister, husband's brother in law and Sunita's father were impleaded as party. No role has been specifically ascribed to anybody except the husband and that too of a dowry demand in February 1993 when the complaint was filed on 6.12.1994 i.e. nearly after 22 months. It is to be noted that in spite of service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of Respondent No.1."
21. Similarly, in the matter of Sunder Babu and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 14 SCC 244 delay in filing complaint against accused therein was taken note of by their Lordships of the Supreme Court holding the case to be covered by Category Seven of para-102 highlighted in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), the prosecution for offence under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was quashed.
22. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Supreme Court held that casual reference to the family member of the husband in 17 / 21 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.
23. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others, 15 (2018) 14 SCC 452 their Lordships of the 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 offences are made out.
24. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra (supra) it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court relying upon the principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) that criminal proceedings can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie offence 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's case (supra) and further held that in absence of specific 18 / 21 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's case (supra) by holding as under:-
"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 offence under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act are general and sweeping. 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.19 / 21
25. There being no specific allegation regarding any one of the applicants except common general 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....."
25. Having noticed the legal position governing the quashment of FIR and charge-sheet, the question that arises for consideration is, whether taking the allegations made in FIR No. 91/2026 and the charge sheet at their face value, any prima facie offence under Sections 85, 3(5) of BNS (498A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code) is made out against the petitioners.
26. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with petitioner Tej Prakash Khunte @ Chhotu (petitioner No.1) on 16/02/2023 as per Hindu rites and rituals, and that soon thereafter she was subjected to cruelty, harassment and demand of money by the petitioner No.1 and her in-laws. On the basis of her written complaint, FIR No.91/2026 was registered at Police Station Balco, Korba and after completion of investigation, the police filed charge- sheet for the aforesaid offence against the petitioners.
27. However, a careful examination of the FIR and the statements 20 / 21 forming part of the charge sheet reveals that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are general, omnibus and lacking in specific particulars regarding dates, instances, or overt acts attributable to the petitioners. The later allegations made in the FIR reflect substantial improvements and embellishments inconsistent with her earlier version. Except broad and vague assertions that the petitioners ill-treated her and reiteration of adverse situations between the parties, no specific allegation is made against the petitioners to constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 85, 3(5) of BNS.
28. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the material placed on record, particularly the nature of allegations in the FIR and charge sheet, which are bald, omnibus and inherently inconsistent, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prima facie offence under Section 85, 3(5) of BNS is made out against the petitioners. The allegations do not disclose any specific conduct amounting to cruelty as defined under Section 85, 3(5) of BNS (Section 498-A, 34 of the IPC), nor do they disclose any unlawful demand of dowry so as to satisfy Explanation (b). The prosecution appears to be covered by Category 1, 3 and 7 of paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal (supra), being based on vague assertions, improvements, and indications of mala fide arising out of matrimonial discord and disagreement. Accordingly, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
29. As a natural consequence of the above analysis, the impugned 21 / 21 FIR bearing No. 91/2026 registered at Police Station- Balco, Korba, (C.G.) on 17/02/2026 for offence under Sections 85 and 3(5) of BNS, Final Report No.88/2026 dated 08/03/2026, order taking cognizance dated 09.03.2026 and all consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No.1379/2026 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba (C.G.) against petitioners are hereby quashed. The petition is accordingly allowed.
30. The petitioner No.1 is entitled for refund of the amount deposited by him before the Mediation Center of this Court in compliance of the order dated 21.04.2026.
31. No order as to costs.
SD/- SD/-
SD/- SD/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ashu