The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that the initial withdrawal of a complaint by a victim does not automatically invalidate criminal proceedings for cognizable and non-compoundable offences, even where allegations of mala fide intent or suppression of evidence are raised. The judgment underscores the limited scope of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash proceedings at the threshold stage.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Servant Lal Sahu, a permanent Loco Pilot with South East Central Railway, was named as the accused in FIR No. 43/2020 registered on 30.04.2020 at Police Station Deori, District Balod, under Sections 452, 354, 294, 506-B, and 323 IPC. The alleged incident occurred on 01.01.2020 at approximately 11:30 - 11:40 p.m. near the complainant’s residence, while the petitioner was returning from duty. The complainant and the petitioner belonged to the same village, Khaprabhath, and their families were reportedly embroiled in a political rivalry stemming from the 2019 - 20 Panchayat elections, wherein the petitioner’s sister-in-law and the complainant’s wife contested the same ward member seat.
Key Facts
- The complainant filed a written complaint with Police Station Deori on 02.01.2020.
- On the same day (02.01.2020), the complainant submitted a handwritten application to the Station House Officer withdrawing the complaint, refusing medical examination, and stating she did not wish to pursue legal action.
- The withdrawal and refusal were recorded in Roznama Sanha No. 70 dated 02.01.2020, and the matter was marked "nastibaddh" (closed).
- No FIR was registered at that time.
- On 17.04.2020, nearly four months later, the complainant filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Balod, seeking action on the earlier incident.
- The Station House Officer submitted a report on 28.04.2020 stating that the matter had been settled and no offence was made out.
- Despite this, FIR No. 43/2020 was registered on 30.04.2020.
- The charge-sheet was filed on 19.06.2020 without disclosing the withdrawal application, Roznama entry, or refusal of medical examination - documents that were part of the police record.
- The petitioner filed multiple applications under Section 91 CrPC seeking production of these withheld documents.
- The documents were eventually supplied to the petitioner following revisional orders.
- The petitioner then moved an application under Section 239 CrPC for discharge, arguing that the withdrawal, absence of injury, and prior opinion of the SHO negated a prima facie case.
Procedural History
- 01.01.2020: Alleged incident occurred.
- 02.01.2020: Written complaint filed; same-day withdrawal and refusal of medical examination recorded in Roznama Sanha No. 70.
- 17.04.2020: Complainant approached Superintendent of Police seeking revival of complaint.
- 28.04.2020: SHO submits report concluding no offence made out.
- 30.04.2020: FIR No. 43/2020 registered under Sections 452, 354, 294, 506-B, 323 IPC.
- 19.06.2020: Charge-sheet filed without disclosing exculpatory documents.
- 11.08.2020: Cognizance order passed by JMFC Dondilohara.
- 21.09.2021: Charges framed under the same sections.
- 12.06.2024: JMFC Dondilohara rejects discharge application under Section 239 CrPC.
- 10.03.2026: Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Balod, dismisses revision petition against discharge order.
- 07.05.2026: Present petition dismissed by Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that the entire proceedings were mala fide, initiated due to political rivalry, and sustained by deliberate suppression of exculpatory evidence. Contended that the initial withdrawal by the victim, absence of medical injury, and SHO’s opinion rendered the case legally unsustainable.
Respondent/State: Maintained that the offences are cognizable, non-compoundable, and non-bailable; the subsequent revival of complaint by the victim and investigation material disclosed a prima facie case; disputed facts must be decided at trial.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of:
- The cognizance order dated 11.08.2020
- The charge-sheet dated 19.06.2020
- The charge framing order dated 21.09.2021
- The order rejecting discharge application dated 12.06.2024
- The revisional order dated 10.03.2026
- The entire criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 43/2020
The Legal Issue
Can criminal proceedings for cognizable and non-compoundable offences be quashed under Section 528 BNSS solely on the ground that the complainant initially withdrew the complaint, and exculpatory documents were allegedly suppressed by the prosecution?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to argue that where proceedings are mala fide, based on inherently improbable allegations, or amount to abuse of process, the High Court may exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash. He emphasized that the complainant’s immediate withdrawal, absence of medical evidence, and the SHO’s conclusion that no offence was made out rendered the case legally unsustainable. He further contended that suppression of the withdrawal application and Roznama entry constituted a deliberate attempt to mislead the court and violated the principles of fair trial.
For the Respondent/State
The State countered that the offences under Sections 452, 354, 506-B, and 323 IPC are non-compoundable and cognizable, meaning the complainant’s initial withdrawal does not extinguish criminal liability. It argued that the subsequent complaint to the Superintendent of Police and the investigation material, including witness statements, established a prima facie case. The State maintained that issues of suppression, motive, and credibility of the withdrawal are factual disputes requiring evidence recording at trial, not adjudication at the quashment stage.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly. It reiterated that at the threshold stage, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or resolve conflicting factual assertions.
"The defence sought to be raised by the petitioner with regard to political rivalry, alleged suppression of documents, withdrawal of complaint and falsity of allegations are all matters which can appropriately be examined by the trial Court upon recording of evidence."
The Court noted that the complainant’s initial withdrawal was recorded in the Roznama and marked "nastibaddh," but this did not preclude a subsequent complaint to higher authorities. The fact that the complainant re-initiated the complaint four months later, and that the police conducted a formal investigation, indicated that the matter was not conclusively closed.
The Court further held that the offences alleged are non-compoundable, and therefore, the victim’s unilateral withdrawal cannot terminate criminal liability. The Court distinguished Bhajan Lal on the ground that the present case did not involve inherently improbable allegations or a complete absence of material to support the charges. The FIR, witness statements, and the nature of the alleged offences provided sufficient prima facie grounds to proceed.
Regarding suppression of documents, the Court observed that the petitioner had eventually obtained the withheld material through revisional proceedings and had ample opportunity to raise the issue before the trial court. The failure to secure discharge under Section 239 CrPC confirmed that the trial court found the material sufficient to proceed. The Court held that allegations of suppression, even if true, do not automatically render proceedings illegal at the quashment stage.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the cognizance order dated 11.08.2020, the charge framing order dated 21.09.2021, the charge-sheet dated 19.06.2020, the order rejecting discharge under Section 239 CrPC dated 12.06.2024, and the revisional order dated 10.03.2026. The criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 43/2020 shall continue before the trial court. No monetary relief or direction was granted, as the relief sought was quashment, which was denied.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Initial Withdrawal Does Not Bar Criminal Prosecution
- Practitioners must advise clients that withdrawal of complaint by the victim at the initial stage does not extinguish criminal liability for non-compoundable offences.
- Even if the matter is marked "nastibaddh" in Roznama, subsequent revival by the complainant and investigation by police can legally sustain prosecution.
Suppression of Evidence Requires Trial-Level Adjudication
- Allegations of suppression of exculpatory documents cannot be grounds for quashment unless the material is so decisive that no case is made out even prima facie.
- If suppressed documents are later obtained, the accused must raise the issue before the trial court under Section 91 CrPC or during trial - not in a quashment petition.
Prima Facie Case Standard Remains Strict
- Courts will not quash proceedings merely because the accused presents a plausible defence.
- The threshold for quashment under Bhajan Lal remains high: only where allegations are legally unsustainable, absurd, or manifestly mala fide without any supporting material.
Abuse of Process Must Be Clear and Unambiguous
- Mere suspicion of political rivalry or ulterior motive is insufficient to invoke inherent jurisdiction.
- The burden is on the petitioner to show that the proceedings are so oppressive or vexatious that they cannot be allowed to continue - beyond mere factual disputes.
Trial Courts Must Scrutinize Discharge Applications Rigorously
- Trial judges must not mechanically reject discharge applications where withdrawal or lack of medical evidence is raised.
- However, the High Court will not interfere unless the trial court’s rejection is patently illegal or based on no material whatsoever.
