The Chhattisgarh High Court has delivered a significant ruling clarifying the territorial scope of Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and reinforcing the limits of criminal intervention in private family disputes. The judgment underscores that criminal proceedings initiated to exert pressure in pending civil litigation, without meeting statutory thresholds, constitute an abuse of process warranting quashment at the threshold.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Deepika Tiwari, a government supervisor, was named in an FIR lodged by her brother, Manish Mishra, following an alleged altercation at his residence. The dispute originated when Manish’s wife found a love letter in their courtyard, purportedly written by the petitioner’s daughter. Upon receiving the letter, the petitioner allegedly visited the complainant’s home, denied authorship, and was accused of abusing, threatening, and physically assaulting him, causing minor injuries.
Procedural History
- 08.05.2025: FIR No. 0325/2025 registered at Police Station Kasdol under Section 115(2), 296, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- 25.07.2025: Charge-sheet filed after investigation, including collection of CCTV footage and witness statements.
- 26.07.2025: Judicial Magistrate First Class took cognizance and framed charges in Criminal Case No. 1514/2025.
- 2025: Petitioner filed writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashment of FIR, charge-sheet, and cognizance order.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashment of the FIR and all consequential proceedings, arguing that the allegations were fabricated to harass her in an ongoing civil property dispute pending since 2021, and that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences - particularly Section 296 BNS - were not satisfied.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 applies to acts committed within a private residence, and whether criminal proceedings initiated in the context of a long-standing family dispute, with no independent corroboration of serious harm, constitute an abuse of process warranting quashment.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 296 BNS explicitly requires the act to occur in a "public place," and the FIR itself admits the incident occurred inside the complainant’s private home. The allegations were characterized as absurd, inherently improbable, and motivated by malice to pressure the petitioner in a pending civil property dispute. Reliance was placed on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to argue that where the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence, quashment is warranted. The petitioner’s status as a public servant was not claimed as immunity, but as evidence of her good character and the likelihood of malicious intent.
For the Respondent/State
The State and complainant contended that the FIR disclosed sufficient grounds for investigation, citing CCTV footage and eyewitness testimony. They argued that quashment at this stage would preclude the trial court from evaluating evidence, and that the existence of a civil dispute does not negate criminal liability. They further denied the existence of any property dispute, calling it a fabricated defence to evade trial.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of the statutory language of Section 296 BNS, which criminalizes "obstructing or annoying any person in a public place." The Court emphasized that statutory interpretation must be literal and context-sensitive. The FIR explicitly states the incident occurred "inside the private residence of the complainant." This factual admission, the Court held, places the case squarely outside the scope of Section 296 BNS, rendering its invocation legally unsustainable.
"The essential ingredient of the offence under Section 296 BNS is that the act must be committed in a public place. The FIR itself unequivocally discloses that the alleged incident occurred within the private residence of the complainant, thereby taking the case outside the ambit of the said provision."
The Court further examined the broader context: the parties are siblings embroiled in a civil property dispute pending since 2021. The timing of the FIR - filed shortly after the civil suit gained momentum - suggested ulterior motive. The Court noted the absence of serious injuries, lack of independent corroboration beyond family members, and the fact that the petitioner had filed a counter NCR. These factors, combined with the statutory defect, satisfied the Bhajan Lal test for mala fide initiation.
The Court also applied the four-step test from Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, finding that the petitioner’s material was of "sterling quality," unrefuted, and sufficient to displace the prosecution’s narrative without requiring trial. Allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to "gross abuse of process" and violate the principle that criminal law must not be weaponized in civil disputes.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court quashed FIR No. 0325/2025, the charge-sheet, and all proceedings arising therefrom. The Court held that Section 296 BNS cannot be invoked for acts committed in private premises, and that criminal proceedings initiated with mala fide intent in the context of a family property dispute constitute an abuse of process.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Section 296 BNS Requires Public Place
- Practitioners must verify the location of the alleged act before filing or defending charges under Section 296 BNS.
- Any FIR alleging obstruction or annoyance in a private home, even if adjacent to a public pathway, is legally unsustainable under this provision.
- Defence counsel should move for quashment at the earliest stage if the location is private.
Criminal Law Cannot Be a Tool in Civil Disputes
- Courts will scrutinize the timing and context of FIRs filed during pending civil litigation.
- Mere allegation of assault or abuse, without serious injury or independent evidence, will not suffice if the dispute is demonstrably personal and civil in nature.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to show genuine criminal intent, not merely retaliatory motive.
Quashment Is Available Even With CCTV Evidence
- The presence of CCTV footage or witness statements does not automatically validate an FIR if the underlying offence is legally unsustainable.
- Courts may quash proceedings where the statutory ingredients are absent, regardless of evidentiary material collected.
- This reinforces that quashment under Section 482 CrPC is not a denial of trial, but a prevention of legally flawed prosecutions.
