Chattisgarh High Court
Nimish Sunil Agarwal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 August, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:39050-DB
NAFR
RAHUL
JHA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
RAHUL JHA
Date: 2025.08.07
18:55:58 +0530
CRMP No. 263 of 2020
Nimish Sunil Agarwal S/o Shri Sunil Agarwal Aged About 40 Years R/o 1/45,
Motilal Nehru Nagar (East) Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Supela, Chowki- Smriti
Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
2 - Smt. Ruhi Agrawal W/o Nimish Agarwal Aged About 36 Years D/o Vijay
Agrawal, R/o Deepak Nagar, Road No.3, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg,
Chhattisgarh. (Complainant), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner :
Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Anshul Tiwari,
Advocates
For State : Mr. Shangarsh Pandey, GA
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Jaideep Singh Yadav, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on BoardPer Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
06/08/2025
1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, instituted under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks to invoke the inherent
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for grant of following prayer:-
2
“It is therefore most humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court
may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and the
entire criminal proceedings i.e. Criminal Case No. RCC
9048/2019 pending in the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Durg in the matter of “State of Chhattisgarh v.
Nimish Sunil Agarwal” may kindly be quashed/set-aside and
the F.I.R. bearing No. 735/2019 registered at Police Station
Supela, District – Durg and the entire charge sheet
numbered 762 / 2019 dated 02.11.2019 filed by the police,
may also kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice”.
2. Facts of the case are that a FIR bearing Cr.No.735/2019 was lodged by
Respondent No. 2, Ruhi Agarwal, on 1.8.2019 alleging that on
28.07.2019, in compliance with an order of the Court, she took her
daughter Ku.Nirwana to Café Coffee Day at Surya Mall, Junwani, for
her visitation with her father (the petitioner). During this meeting, when
the child showed no interest in interacting with her father, he allegedly
became angry, abused both the complainant and the child, and threatened
to kill them. Based on this complaint, a criminal case was registered
against the petitioner under relevant legal provisions, and an
investigation was conducted. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the
allegations were found to be substantiated, and a chargesheet was filed
against the accused bearing No.762/2019 dated 2.11.2019. Based upon
the same, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, registered a case
bearing RCC No.9048/2019, which is under challenge in the instant
petition.
3
3. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, on
28.07.2019, the petitioner did not interact with the minor daughter due to
the presence of Respondent No. 2 at the designated meeting place. In
such circumstances, the question of the petitioner threatening the child
does not arise at all. It is submitted that the FIR in question has been
lodged by the respondent No.2 wife with an oblique motive, solely with
the intent to frustrate and curtail the petitioner’s court-granted visitation
rights with his duaghter. Learned counsel further submits that on each
occasion when the petitioner sought to meet his daughter in accordance
with the directions of the Court, Respondent No. 2 was invariably
present, despite repeated requests by the petitioner to allow him to
interact with the child alone/privately. It is further submitted that, even
assuming the allegations made in the FIR and the charge sheet to be true
in their entirety, the essential ingredients constituting offences under
Sections 294 and 506 of the IPC are not made out against the petitioner.
(b) It is submitted by the learned cousnel that no prior investigation
was properly carried out before filing of the charge sheet. Furthermore,
the petitioner contended at para 11 of the instant petition that the police
authorities have erroneously shown him as “absconding” in the charge
sheet, despite the fact that he had duly appeared before the police as and
when directed. On the date of filing the charge sheet, the petitioner had
informed the concerned authorities that he would be unavailable due to
personal commitments. However, despite such intimation, the police
4
proceeded to declare him an absconder. He would submit that the
petitioner is cooperating fully with the investigation.
(c) Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner,
being the biological father of minor Nirvana Nimish Rai, had instituted
custody proceedings under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act,
1890, seeking permanent custody of his daughter. The petitioner and
Respondent No. 2, Ruhi Agrawal, were married on 16.01.2007 and their
daughter was born on 12.01.2012. Owing to marital discord, the parties
separated in 2016, following which the respondent lodged a false FIR
against the petitioner and his family. Though a compromise was entered
into and a substantial amount of ₹3.05 crores was paid by the petitioner,
the respondent failed to honour the terms by not withdrawing the
criminal proceedings, indicating her non-cooperative and hostile
conduct. The petitioner further submits that the respondent is suffering
from a serious medical condition (AVM), and has consistently neglected
her medical care and parental duties, resulting in emotional harm and
physical abuse to the child. Additionally, the respondent has unilaterally
taken decisions affecting the child’s education and identity, including
altering school admissions and passport details without the petitioner’s
consent.
(d) Learned counsel would further submit that despite the High
Court’s order dated 07.09.2018 directing expeditious disposal of custody
proceedings, the respondent deliberately delayed the matter. When the
High Court scheduled a hearing on 05.08.2019 to ascertain the child’s
5
wishes, the respondent, in an attempt to frustrate the petitioner’s rights,
lodged another false complaint on 29.07.2019, resulting in registration of
FIR No. 735/2019.
(e) This, along with earlier similar conduct, reveals a clear pattern of
vindictiveness intended to alienate the child and harass the petitioner.
The petitioner, who is financially and emotionally capable of caring for
the child, prays that FIR No. 735/2019 and the corresponding charge
sheet No. 762/2019 dated 02.11.2019 be quashed as an abuse of the legal
process and a tool to prejudice the ongoing custody proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned cousnel for the
complainant submit that the allegations made in the complaint disclose a
prima facie case warranting investigation and trial. The complainant has
alleged acts that, if proved, may attract the provisions of Sections 294
and 506 IPC. The FIR was registered based on the complainant’s
version, and after due investigation, a charge sheet has been filed. At this
stage, the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations cannot be adjudicated
summarily, and the petitioner has the opportunity to contest the charges
during trial. Hence, the petition for quashing may not be entertained at
this preliminary stage.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings
and documents.
6. On a careful consideration of the facts placed on record and the
submissions advanced by both sides, it is evident that the impugned
6
criminal proceedings arise out of a deeply strained matrimonial dispute
and appear to have been initiated with the intent to frustrate the
petitioner’s legally recognized visitation rights. The chronology of
events clearly suggests that the complaint was filed not as a bona fide
attempt to seek redress, but rather as a retaliatory step timed with the
petitioner’s pursuit of custody and access to his minor daughter.
7. The Court is reminded that the criminal justice system must not be used
as a means to settle personal scores or to exert undue pressure in
collateral civil or family disputes. The allegations, even if taken at their
face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of any cognizable
offence, particularly under Sections 294 and 506 IPC. Letting such
proceedings continue would not serve the ends of justice, but would
instead amount to unnecessary harassment and misuse of judicial time
and resources.
8. It is well-settled that when the process of law is used to achieve an
ulterior motive, it amounts to an abuse of process, and in such situations,
the High Court is empowered to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No. 735/2019
dated 29.07.2019 registered at Police Station Supela, District – Durg,
along with the charge sheet No. 762/2019 dated 02.11.2019 and the
connected Criminal Case No. RCC 9048/2019 pending before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, are hereby quashed, in the
7
interest of justice, to prevent further abuse of the legal process and to
secure the rights of the petitioner.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Rahul/Gowri