News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 99 | 2026:CGHC:1859-DB
January 13, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has declined to quash criminal proceedings against a government employee accused in connection with a woman’s suicide, holding that the allegations raise triable issues that must be examined during trial.
A Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha dismissed a petition filed by Smt. Prabha Sahu, a clerk posted in the office of the Block Education Officer at Bhatapara, who sought quashing of an FIR, charge sheet, cognizance order, and charges framed against her in a case relating to abetment of suicide and alleged violations of the Chhattisgarh Debtor Protection Act.
The case arises from the death of Smt. Radhika Dubey, who was found hanging at her residence in Bhatapara on April 9, 2021. A merg intimation was initially registered on the same day based on information from a local hospital. During the merg inquiry, the deceased’s son later submitted an alleged suicide note. Subsequently, in July 2021, the husband and son of the deceased lodged a written complaint alleging that certain individuals, including the petitioner, had been pressuring Radhika Dubey to repay loan amounts along with interest and had threatened legal action, causing her mental distress.
Based on the complaint, police registered an FIR under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Chhattisgarh Debtor Protection Act, 1937. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and charges were framed by the trial court in September 2025.
Challenging these proceedings, the petitioner argued that mere demand for repayment of a loan does not amount to abetment of suicide. It was contended that no illegal recovery methods were alleged, no incriminating documents were seized from her, and her name did not appear in the suicide note. The defence also highlighted the delay of nearly three months in lodging the FIR and relied on Supreme Court precedents to argue that the essential ingredients of abetment were absent.
The State opposed the plea, submitting that the FIR, suicide note, and witness statements, if taken at face value, disclosed a prima facie case and that the trial court had rightly framed charges without conducting a detailed evaluation of evidence, which is impermissible at that stage.
After examining the record, the High Court held that while the petitioner’s arguments were not without substance, they involved disputed questions of fact that could not be conclusively decided in proceedings seeking quashing. The Court observed that the material collected during investigation prima facie indicated continuous pressure and harassment over loan repayment, and whether such conduct legally amounts to abetment must be determined during trial.
The Bench further held that the order framing charges showed due application of mind and did not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference. It concluded that the case did not fall within the limited category of exceptional circumstances where inherent powers could be exercised to quash criminal proceedings at the threshold. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that its observations were limited to deciding the quashing plea and would not influence the trial on merits.
Case Reference : CRMP No. 94 of 2026, Smt. Prabha Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another; Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate; Counsel for the State/Respondent No. 1: Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate.
