Chhattisgarh High Court quashes FIR after SIT found eight cases against family fabricated and police machinery misused

Petitioner No. 2, Priyanka Lahre, allegedly had a relationship with Respondent No. 10, Piyush Tiwari, who allegedly represented himself as unmarried and promised to marry her. After discovering that he was married, she married Petitioner No. 1, Atul Rathore, on 5 April 2018.

The petitioners alleged that, following the marriage, Tiwari threatened Priyanka and later lodged a complaint against her and her family, resulting in Crime No. 107/2019 at Police Station Maudhapara, Raipur, under Sections 384, 507, 120-B, 389 and 201 IPC.

The petitioners contended that Crime No. 107/2019 formed part of a series of eight fabricated criminal cases registered between 2019 and 2021 against substantially the same family members, allegedly with the assistance of Respondent No. 3, a senior police officer.

On complaints made by the petitioners and others, the State police constituted a Special Investigation Team.

The State’s affidavit recorded that the SIT found the eight offences to be fabricated, noted the complicity of Respondent No. 3, and found negligence in the investigation of Crime No. 107/2019.

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR, Chargesheet No. 146/2019, the order framing charges and all consequential proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash Crime No. 107/2019, the chargesheet, order framing charges and consequential criminal proceedings on the ground that the prosecution was malicious and constituted an abuse of process.

Whether the cumulative effect of the repeated criminal proceedings, implication of substantially the same family members, closure reports and stay orders in connected cases, the alleged involvement of associated complainants, and the subsequent SIT findings justified quashing the present prosecution despite the filing of the chargesheet.

The Court applied Section 482 CrPC, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice.

It relied principally on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the illustrative category permitting quashing where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance arising from a private or personal grudge.

The Court reiterated that ordinarily it should not conduct a mini-trial, assess disputed facts or evaluate evidence under Section 482 CrPC; however, it may intervene where subsequent, substantial or official material demonstrates that continuation of the prosecution would cause manifest injustice or constitute abuse of process.

The Court held that no individual circumstance—such as multiple FIRs, common accused, connected complainants, official postings, closure reports or interim stays—would independently establish mala fides.

However, the cumulative effect of these circumstances was material.

The same family members had repeatedly been implicated; Respondent No. 10 was the complainant in several cases and other complainants were allegedly connected with him; the petitioners had faced repeated proceedings and arrests; and several connected cases had ended in closure reports or remained stayed.

More significantly, the State’s own affidavit recorded the SIT’s finding that all eight cases were fabricated, identified complicity of Respondent No. 3 and specifically found negligence in the investigation of Crime No. 107/2019, resulting in disciplinary action against the Investigating Officer.

Although the SIT report was not treated as a conclusive adjudication against Respondent No. 10, it was considered relevant official material supporting the allegation that the prosecution and investigation were tainted.

In these exceptional circumstances, requiring the petitioners to undergo trial would perpetuate a prosecution whose foundation and investigation had been seriously discredited by the State’s own subsequent inquiry.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed Crime No. 107/2019 registered at Police Station Maudhapara, Raipur, Chargesheet No. 146/2019, the order framing charges and all consequential proceedings, including Criminal Case No. 11406/2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur.

The petitioners were left at liberty to pursue the other reliefs before the appropriate forum.