1 CrMP No.409 of 2022 2025:CGHC:47450-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 409 of 2022 1 - Smt. Subhadra Bai W/o Late Yadavram Dadsena Aged About 67 Years R/o Mansarovar Colony, Quarter No. 55-56, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Janki Dadsena W/o Harikeshav Dadsena Aged About 29 Years R/o Mansarovar Colony, Quarter No. 55-56, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Manju Sinha D/o Ishwari Prasad Sinha Aged About 33 Years R/o Mansarovar Colony, Quarter No. 55-56, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Motilal Sinha S/o Late Thanwar Sinha Aged About 56 Years R/o Mansarovar Colony, Quarter No. 55-56, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Harikeshav Dadsena S/o Late Yadavram Dadsena Aged About 33 Years R/o Mansarovar Colony, Quarter No. 55-56, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Nagendra Dadsena S/o Late Yadavram Dadsena Aged About 41 SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.09.18 19:31:16 +0530 2 CrMP No.409 of 2022 Years R/o Mansarovar Colony, Quarter No. 55-56, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Pyari Dadsena W/o Nagendra Dadsena Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Kesra, Police Station Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioners : Mr. D. K. Gwalre, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Swajeet Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16/09/2025 1. Heard Mr. D. K. Gwalre, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Swajeet Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/ State as well as Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/ Complainant. 2. The present CRMP has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer :- 3 CrMP No.409 of 2022 “3.1 call for the records from the Courts below for kind perusal; 3.2 allow the instant petition and be pleased to set aside the order dated 27/01/2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 118/2021 by the Court of Session Judge, Durg, District -Durg (CG) (Annexure-P/1) and allow the Criminal Revision; 3.3 graciously be pleased to quash the questioned charge-sheet no. 456/2013 dated 13/12/2013 pending consideration in Criminal Case No. 1263/2013 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Bhilai-3, District (Annexure-P/2) in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the present case, in nutshell, are that the complainant/ respondent No. 2, was married to Petitioner No. 6, Nagendra Dadsena, on 18.05.2006 according to Hindu rites, and the couple had a daughter on 09.06.2009. On 09.05.2013, she lodged a written complaint alleging harassment for dowry and that her husband had contracted a second marriage with Petitioner No. 3. Based on this complaint, FIR No. 233/2013 was registered at Police Station Purani Bhilai under Sections 498-A/34 and 494/34 of the IPC. The petitioners filed a discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the trial Court on 18.04.2019, and the order was upheld in revision on 07.03.2020. Initially, charges were framed only against Petitioners No. 5 and 6 4 CrMP No.409 of 2022 on 11.01.2021, which were later set aside by the revisional Court on 03.07.2021, directing the trial court to frame charges against all accused. In compliance, charges were framed against Petitioners No. 1 to 4 on 24.07.2021, which were again challenged in Criminal Revision No. 118/2021 and dismissed on 27.01.2022. The petitioners submit that the entire complaint is vague, exaggerated, and appears to be afterthought, lacking specific or credible allegations to constitute offences under relevant sections of the IPC. According to the petitioners, the prosecution based on such omnibus and general allegations amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the petitioners pray for quashing of the pending criminal proceedings in the interest of justice and to prevent misuse of process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant case is only an abuse of process of law, wherein the petitioners have been falsely implicated in a matrimonial dispute without any specific or substantiated allegations. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the materials collected during the investigation, as reflected in the charge-sheet, do not disclose the commission of any offence against the petitioners. The charges framed by the learned trial Court suffer from legal infirmity, as they are based on vague, omnibus, and baseless allegations devoid of any concrete material. The learned revisional Court has further erred in dismissing the petitioners' revision petition on the 5 CrMP No.409 of 2022 erroneous ground of maintainability, despite there being a distinct cause of action. Moreover, he contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently cautioned against the indiscriminate prosecution of relatives of the husband in Section 498-A IPC cases, especially in the absence of specific allegations. In the present case, some of the petitioners were living separately had no direct contact or cohabitation with the complainant. In light of these circumstances, criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners would amount to grave miscarriage of justice, and as such, the same deserves to be quashed to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel and counsel for respondent No. 2 opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and submits that the complaint contains specific allegations supported by the investigation and charge sheet. They contended that the prosecution is neither vague nor baseless and that the petitioners’ discharge application was rightly rejected by the trial and revisional Courts. Hence, the petition seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings may be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 7. Though the respondent No.2 represented before this Court through her counsel, but no reply has been filed till date despite granting time on her request. 6 CrMP No.409 of 2022 8. After a careful reading and perusal of the documents and considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, along with a detailed perusal of the case record, FIR, charge sheet and other relevant materials, this Court is of the considered opinion that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners suffer from serious legal infirmities and are liable to be quashed. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that the marriage between the complainant and petitioner No. 6 was solemnized in the year 2006 and the present dispute has been pending for a considerable period. Despite passage of time, the allegations against the petitioners remain vague, broad, and devoid of the specificity and concreteness required to establish a prima facie case under Sections 498-A and 494 of IPC. 10. It is noteworthy to mention here that petitioner No.4, who is employed as an Assistant Grade-III at the Office of the SDM, Patan, District Durg, is the brother-in-law (nandoi) of respondent No.2. He was not residing with her at the relevant time. Similarly, petitioner No.5 (brother-in-law/devar) and petitioner No.2 (sister- in-law/devrani) are also government employees who were not residing with respondent No.2 and had no direct contact or involvement with her. Petitioners No.3 and 6 are already facing prosecution before a competent court, and despite being aware of this, respondent No.2 has initiated a second criminal proceeding 7 CrMP No.409 of 2022 against them, thereby subjecting them to double jeopardy, which is impermissible in law. The petitioners have been implicated without any credible or substantiated material. The investigation and charge sheet fail to disclose any offence against the petitioners. 11. The law has consistently cautioned against the indiscriminate and indisposed prosecution of relatives in matrimonial disputes, especially under Section 498-A IPC, when there is an absence of specific allegations or direct involvement. 12. Moreover, the complainant had previously instituted separate proceedings based on different allegations, which raises the issue of double jeopardy and further underscores the possibility of harassment and misuse of process of law. Therefore, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners under such circumstances, would not only result in grave miscarriage of justice but also cause unnecessary hardship and prejudice to the petitioners. 13. The trial Court and the revisional Courts, in their orders rejecting the discharge applications, have not adequately addressed these fundamental issues. Thus, this Court finds it appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the present petitioners to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice. 8 CrMP No.409 of 2022 14. In view of the forgoing, the order dated 27/01/2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No. 118/2021 and the charge-sheet No. 456/2013, dated 13/12/2013 with respect to the Criminal Case No. 1263/2013 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) against the present petitioners are hereby quashed. 15. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (CRMP) is allowed. - Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice $. Bhilwar