Factual defenses and pleas of alibi are triable issues, not grounds for discharge or quashing.

On February 2, 2025, the deceased, Varsha Kujur, committed suicide by hanging at her matrimonial home

Initially, an FIR was registered against her husband, but subsequent investigation and statements from the deceased’s maternal relatives led to the implication of the petitioners (the mother-in-law and sister-in-law)

A charge-sheet was filed on September 16, 2025

The petitioners filed for discharge under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which was rejected by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, on February 2, 2026

Charges were subsequently framed under Sections 108 (Abetment) and 3(5) (Joint Liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The petitioners challenged the charge-sheet and the Trial Court’s orders before the High Court, asserting their absence from the place of occurrence (alibi), the absence of dowry culture in their tribe, and a lack of specific overt acts of instigation

Whether the High Court, in exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, can quash criminal proceedings by re-appreciating evidence or adjudicating factual defenses at the stage of framing charges?

Whether the material on record, including witness statements, disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioners to justify the trial for abetment of suicide?

The Court primarily applied Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, which preserves the High Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of law

It applied the standard for discharge under Section 250 of the BNSS, 2023, noting that at this stage, the Court only examines if a "strong suspicion" or a prima facie case exists based on the material at face value

Substantively, the Court looked at Section 108 (Abetment) and Section 3(5) (Common Intention) of the BNS, 2023

It reaffirmed the principle that defenses such as alibi or separate residence are disputed questions of fact that must be tested during trial and cannot be adjudicated in a quashing petition

The Court reasoned that its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is not appellate and does not permit a "meticulous evaluation of evidence" or a determination of the "probative value of statements"

By reviewing the charge-sheet and the statements of the deceased's family members, the Court found specific allegations of continuous harassment in the matrimonial home

The Court held that even if the petitioners raised defenses regarding their absence from the scene or the nature of their tribal customs, these are matters requiring a full-fledged trial including cross-examination

The Court concluded that the Trial Court followed the correct legal threshold—satisfied that there were grounds for "presuming" the accused committed the offense—which is significantly lower than the "proof beyond reasonable doubt" required for conviction

The Court affirmed that the Trial Court's orders dated February 2, 2026 (rejecting discharge) and February 5, 2026 (framing charges) did not suffer from jurisdictional error or perversity

The prayer to quash the charge-sheet and discharge the petitioners was denied