1 2025:CGHC:36058-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 647 of 2024 1 - Smt. Nilima Kawade D/o Late Pandharinath Kawade Aged About 43 Years R/o Rukhmini Nagar, Sawangi Meghe Wardha, Deoli Road, District Wardha, Maharashtra. 2 - Smt. Kalawati Kawade W/o Pandharinath Kawade Aged About 70 Years R/o Rukhmini Nagar, Sawangi Meghe Wardha, Deoli Road, District Wardha, Maharashtra. 3 - Sanjay Kawade S/o Pandharinath Aged About 52 Years R/o Rukhmini Nagar, Sawangi Meghe Wardha, Deoli Road, District Wardha, Maharashtra. 4 - Sandhya Kawade W/o Sanjay Kawade Aged About 43 Years R/o Rukhmini Nagar, Sawangi Meghe Wardha, Deoli Road, District Wardha, Maharashtra. 5 - Mithun Vishwanath Kawade S/o Shri Vishwanath Kawade Aged About 36 Years R/o R/o Chhota Buddh Vihar, Vaishali Chowk, Jakir Hussain Ward, Ballarshah, District Chandrapur, Maharashtra. 6 - Ranjeet Ramkaran Gautam S/o Ramkaran Gautam Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Pulfel, Wardha, District Wardha, Maharashtra. 7 - Popeshwar Taksande S/o Late Atma Ram Aged About 66 Years R/o Behind Buddh Vihar, Near Railway Crossing Gate Singhi Railway Station Tahsil Selu, District Wardha, Maharastra. 8 - Rajratan Haridas Jui Kamble S/o Shri Haridas Kamble Aged About 67 Years R/o Bahujan Nagar, Tahsil And District Wardha, Maharashtra ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.26 11:18:11 +0530 2 9 - Manisha Kawade D/o Vishwanath Kawade Aged About 33 Years R/o Chhota Buddh Vihar, Vaishali, Chowk, Jakir Hussain Ward, Ballarashah, District Chandrapur, Maharashtra 10 - Ashish Kawade S/o Shri Vishwanath Kawade Aged About 31 Years R/o Chhota Buddh Vihar, Vaishali, Chowk, Jakir Hussain Ward, Ballarshah, District Chandrapur, Maharashtra 11 - Vishwanath Jholbaji Kawade S/o Jhobaji Kawade Aged About 66 Years R/o Chhota Buddh Vihar, Vaishali, Chowk, Jakir Hussain Ward, Ballarshah District Chandrapur, Maharashtra. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Home Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent of Police, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Station House Officer, Police Station Nandini Nagar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Madhavi Sonwane, W/o Amod Anand Sonwane, Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Vivekanand Colony, Nandini Nagar, Tehsil Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Amod Anand Sonwane, S/o Shri Anand Sonwane, Aged About 52 Years R/o 345, 6th Floor Shri Mohini Complex Kingsway Nagpur (M.H.) 6 - Hitendra Kumar S/o Shri Panditrao Palaspagar, Aged About 48 Years Permanent R/o Ward No. 12 Vivekaknad Colony, Nandini Nagar, Durg Tehsil And, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 : Mr.Niraj Baghel, Advocate 3 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 2 5 .07.2025 1 Heard Mr. Shivang Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Niraj Baghel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the following prayers:- “1. That, this Hon'ble Court be kindly be pleased to call for entire record of the case pertaining to FIR no. 40 of 2019 registered at Police Station Nandini Nagar Durg, District- Durg. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court be kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside FIR no. 40 of 2019 registered at Police Station Nandini Nagar Durg, District- Durg. 3. That, this Hon'ble Court be kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside chargesheet no. 97/2020 dated 15.03.2021 submitted by Police Station Nandini Nagar Durg, District- Durg 4. That, this Hon'ble Court be kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside criminal proceedings pending before JMFC 4 Durg, in Criminal Case no.RCC/14549/2022. 5. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct disciplinary action against Respondent no. 3 for registering the false FIR against the Petitioner in FIR no. 40 of 2019. 6. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent no. 1 to grant appropriate compensation to the Petitioners to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakh) for malicious prosecution brought against him by State Instrumentalities. 7. Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court including award the cost of the petition.” 3 Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that, Petitioner No. 1, Smt. Nilima Kawade, was married to Respondent No. 6, the brother of the Complainant (Respondent No. 4), on 16.02.2010. Post- marriage, she came into contact with the Complainant and her husband (Respondent No. 5) for the first time and is neither biologically nor legally a relative of the Complainant’s husband under the meaning of Section 498A IPC. Due to acts of domestic violence by Respondent No. 6, the Complainant, and her mother- in-law, Petitioner No. 1 separated from her husband in August 2010 and has since resided at her parental home in Wardha. She filed a domestic violence case in 2010, which resulted in orders of 5 maintenance and protection in her favour. Petitioners No. 2 to 11 are relatives or associates of Petitioner No. 1 and are not related in any manner to the Complainant or her husband. They have never resided with the Complainant and have been implicated falsely. On 19.02.2019, after an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly 12 years, the Complainant lodged FIR No. 40/2019 at Police Station Nandini Nagar, District Durg, alleging offences under Sections 498A, 506, 508, and 34 of IPC against the petitioners based on vague, omnibus allegations of cruelty. The Petitioners submit that the FIR has been filed with ulterior motives to harass and implicate them, especially after Petitioner No. 1 obtained favourable orders in the domestic violence proceedings. Notably, even individuals who deposed in favour of Petitioner No. 1 in the DV case have been named in the FIR. Despite recommendations from the Mahila Helpline dated 20.02.2019, the police had already registered the FIR on 19.02.2019 without awaiting the conclusion of the conciliatory proceedings, rendering the FIR premature and illegal. A charge sheet bearing No.97/2020 has been filed, and the trial is currently pending at the stage of framing of charges before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Criminal Case No. RCC/14549/2022. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present FIR and consequential proceedings are nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law, initiated with a view to harass and pressurize the petitioners, who are either distant relatives or unrelated 6 persons, and have no direct involvement or participation in the alleged acts. It is submitted that Petitioner No. 1 was married to Respondent No. 6 (brother of the complainant) in February 2010, but due to continuous cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws, she separated from her matrimonial home in August 2010 and has since been residing at her parental home in Wardha. In the year 2010 itself, she filed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which culminated in a favourable order dated 14.10.2013 granting her monthly maintenance and protection. It is further submitted that the impugned FIR No.40/2019 was lodged belatedly on 19.02.2019 after a gap of more than 8 years from the date of separation, and 12 years from the date of marriage, making the allegations inherently improbable and lacking credibility. No explanation whatsoever has been provided for such an inordinate delay. The learned counsel contends that petitioners No. 2 to 11 are either maternal relatives, family friends, or well-wishers of Petitioner No. 1 who had no domestic connection with the complainant or her matrimonial home. Many of them are residents of different districts and states. It is settled law that vague and omnibus allegations made against such relatives without specific role attribution are insufficient to attract the ingredients of Sections 498A, 506, or 508 IPC. It is further submitted that the police acted in undue haste by registering the FIR even before the conclusion of the Mahila Helpline proceedings dated 20.02.2019, thereby 7 bypassing the statutory reconciliation process envisaged for matrimonial disputes. It is lastly submitted that even a bare reading of the FIR and the charge-sheet fails to disclose any prima facie case against the petitioners, and thus, permitting continuation of the proceedings would amount to causing undue harassment and miscarriage of justice. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, U. Suvetha v. State of Inspector of Police, (2009) 6 SCC 757, Vijeta Gaja v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2010) 11 SCC 618, State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 932 and Vikram Johnar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.759/2019 as well as Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741, where the Court has held that vague and omnibus allegations against in-laws without specific acts cannot sustain prosecution under Section 498-A IPC. In the present case, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to gross misuse of the judicial process and cause undue harassment to the petitioners, who have been falsely implicated without any cogent basis. The ingredients of the alleged offence are also not made but and as such, exercise of extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction by this Hon'ble Court is very much warranted. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays that the impugned FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8 6 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for private respondent No.4 opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is wholly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold as it is an attempt to stifle a genuine prosecution based on serious and corroborated allegations of cruelty, mental harassment, and outraging of modesty suffered by the complainant at the hands of the petitioners. It is submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are not vague or omnibus in nature, but rather disclose specific and detailed acts committed by the petitioners against the complainant, Madhavi. The charge sheet filed in Criminal Case No.14549/2022 contains sufficient prima facie material against each of the petitioners, supported by the statements of multiple independent witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the complainant, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has clearly narrated the harassment and cruelty meted out to her not just during her matrimonial stay, but also during the marriage ceremony held in August 2010, which was attended by several of the petitioners. These are not general allegations but are supported by names, dates, and specific conduct attributed to each of the accused. Significantly, independent witness Smt. Sangeeta Gaikwad has stated that from 18.08.2010 to 22.08.2010 during the marriage ceremony at Nandini Township, Petitioner Shiva and others behaved inappropriately with the complainant, and that the 9 complainant had confided in her that under the pretext of clicking photos, some petitioners had tried to outrage her modesty. These are grave and serious allegations which cannot be brushed aside in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Another independent witness, Smt. Chandrakanta Pagare, has also supported the version of the complainant and confirmed the continuous mental harassment faced by her. It is respectfully submitted that when multiple witnesses independently corroborate the complainant’s account, the matter becomes one for full trial, not for premature quashment. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, and CBI v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379, has categorically held that at the stage of framing of charges or considering quashing, the court is not to examine the truthfulness of allegations or conduct a mini-trial. If the FIR and charge sheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, as is the case here, then the trial should be permitted to run its full course. With respect to the alleged delay in lodging the FIR, it is submitted that such delay stands well- explained in light of the complainant’s mental condition, familial pressures, and threats received from the petitioners. It is trite law that mere delay, in the absence of mala fide or fabrication, is not fatal to a prosecution, particularly when the allegations are supported by consistent witness statements. It is further submitted that the trial court has already taken cognizance after full 10 application of mind to the charge sheet and accompanying material. The cognizance order remains unchallenged and is valid in law. The petitioners, through the present proceedings, are attempting to pre-emptively defeat the legal process and evade accountability before trial, this Court may therefore be pleased to decline interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the case does not fall within any of the exceptional circumstances laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, as such, prayed that present petition be allowed and the criminal proceedings to continue in accordance with law. 7 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8 At this juncture, Section 498A IPC is reproduced herein below for ready reference: "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. -- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. For the purpose of this section, cruelty means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental 11 or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 9 In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Supreme Court has held that casual reference to the family member of the husband in FIR as co-accused particularly when there is no specific allegation and complaint did not disclose their active involvement. It was held that cognizance of matter against them for offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC would not be justified as cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process. 10 In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others, (2018) 14 SCC 452, the Supreme Court delineated the duty of the criminal Courts while proceeding against relatives of victim's husband and held that the Court should be careful in proceeding against distant relatives in crime pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and further held that relatives of husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations, unless specific instances of their 12 involvement in offences are made out. 11 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in landmark judgment passed in the case of U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police (2009) 6 SCC 757, has explained the term "relative" under section 498 A at para-18 as under: "The word 'relative' brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise." 12 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another landmark judgment passed in the case of Vijeta Gajar vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (2010) 11 SCC 618 while explaining the term "relative" under section 498 A IPC has held as under: "11. Shri U.U. Lalit, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that in U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police, it was specifically held that in order to be covered under Section 498A, IPC one has to be a "relative" of the husband by blood, marriage or adoption. He pointed out that the present appellant was not in any manner a "relative" as referred to in Section 498A, IPC and, therefore, there is no question of any allegation against her in respect of the ill- treatment of the complainant. The Court in this case examined the ingredients of 498-A 13 IPC and noting the specific language of the Section and the Explanation thereof came to the conclusion that the word "relative" would not include a paramour or concubine or so. 12. Relying on the dictionary meaning of the word "relative" and further relying on R. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advance Law Lexicon, Volume 4, 3rd Edn., the Court went on to hold that Section 498-A IPC being a penal provision would deserve strict construction and unless a contextual meaning is required to be given to the statute, the said statute has to be construed strictly. On that behalf the Court relied on the judgment in T. Ashok Pai v. CITA reference was made to the decision Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of M.P.3 After quoting from various decisions of this Court, it was held that reference to the word "relative" in Section 498-A IPC would be limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage. 13. Relying heavily on this, Shri Lalit contended that there is no question of any trial of the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The argument is undoubtedly correct, though opposed by the Learned Counsel appearing for the State. We are of the opinion that there will be no question of her prosecution under Section 498-A IPC. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, also did not seriously 14 dispute this proposition. Therefore, we hold that the FIR insofar as it concerned Section 498A IPC, would be of no consequence and the appellant shall not be tried for the offence under Section 498A IPC." 13 Further, in the matter of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (2014) 9 SCC 632, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held with respect to term relative under Section 498-A IPC as under: "8. Admittedly, the respondent is not the husband of the woman who died and, therefore, the question which falls for determination is as to whether he comes within the ambit of "any relative of her husband". The expression "relative" has not been defined in IPC The provision with which we are concerned is a penal provision which deserves strict construction. It is well settled that when the words of a statute are not defined, it has to be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense. For this purpose, it shall be permissible to refer to dictionaries to find out the general sense in which the word is understood in common parlance. In Ramanatha Aiyar's, Advance Law Lexicon (Vol.4, 3rd Edn.), the word "relative" means any person related by blood, marriage or adoption. A large number of dictionaries give this word "relative", in context, the same meaning. 9. It is relevant here to state that the expression "relative of the husband" has 15 been used in Section 498-A IPC. While interpreting the said expression, this Court in the case of U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police held it to mean a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows (SCC p. 762, para 10) "10. In the absence of any statutory definition, the term 'relative' must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or granddaughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word 'relative' would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. 10. The expression "relative of the husband" further came up for consideration in Vijeta Gajar vs. State of NCT of Delhi and while approving the decision of this Court in U. Suvetha, it was held that the word relative would be limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage. It is appropriate to reproduce the following passage from the said judgment@Vijeta Gajra case, SCC p. 621, para 12) "12. Relying on the dictionary meaning of the word 'relative' and further relying on P. Ramanatha Aiyar's, Advance Law Lexicon 16 (Vol.4, 3rd Edn.), the Court went on to hold that Section 498-A IPC being a penal provision would deserve strict construction and unless a contextual meaning is required to be given to the statute, the said statute has to be construed strictly. On that behalf the Court relied on the judgment in T. Ashok Pai v. CIT. A reference was made to the decision in Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of M.P. After quoting from various decisions of this Court, it was held that reference to the word 'relative' in Section 498-A IPC would be limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage." 14 Recently, in the matter of Vikram Johnar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019 (14) SCC 207, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para-27 with respect to offence under Section 506 which reads as under: "27. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona Shrikhande (supra) has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegations is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edition with regard to proof of offence states 17 following: The prosecution must prove: (i) That the accused threatened some person; (ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested; (iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat." 15 In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620, it has been held by the Supreme Court relying upon the principle of law laid down in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 that criminal proceedings can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie offence is disclosed and further held that judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of oppression or harassment and the High Court should not hesitate in exercising the jurisdiction to quash the proceedings if the proceedings deserve to be quashed in line of parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) and further held that in 18 absence of specific allegation regarding anyone of the accused except common and general allegations against everyone, no offence under Section 498A IPC is made out and quashed the charges for offence under Section 498A of the IPC being covered by category seven as enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra) by holding as under:- “24. Coming back to the allegations in the complaint pertaining to Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the allegations against the appellants for offence under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act are general and sweeping. No specific incident dates or details of any incident has been mentioned in the complaint. The complaint having been filed after proceeding for divorce was initiated by Nayan Chopra in State of Michigan, where Vanshika participated and divorce was ultimately granted. A few months after filing of the divorce petition, the complaint has been filed in the Court of C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar with the allegations as noticed above. The sequence of the events and facts and circumstances of the case leads us to conclude that the complaint under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act have been filed as counter blast to divorce petition proceeding in State of Michigan by Nayan Chopra. 25. There being no specific allegation 19 regarding any one of the applicants except common general allegation against everyone i.e. “they started harassing the daughter of the applicant demanding additional dowry of one crore” and the fact that all relatives of the husband, namely, father, mother, brother, mother’s sister and husband of mother’s sister have been roped in clearly indicate that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed with a view to harass the applicants..…” 16 The Apex Court, in Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab & Another {Cr.A. No. 4773/2024, decided on 26.11.2024} had, relying on the decision in Geeta Mehrotra (supra), Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others {(2022) 6 SCC 599}, Bhajan Lal (supra), and Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another {(2013) 10 SCC 591}, had quashed the FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 17 Very recently, the Apex Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayan & Others v. State of Telangana & Another {Cr.A. No. 5199 of 2024, decided on 10.12.2024}, has observed as under:- “25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s 20 family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 26. In fact, in the instant case, the first appellant and his wife i.e. the second respondent herein resided at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where he was working in Southern Railways. They were married in the year 2015 and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the second respondent gave birth to two children. Therefore, it cannot be believed that there was any harassment for dowry during the said period or that there was any matrimonial discord. Further, the second respondent in response to the missing complaint filed by the first appellant herein on 05.10.2021 addressed a letter 21 dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting for closure of the said complaint as she had stated that she had left the matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a quarrel with the appellant No.1 because of one Govindan with whom the second respondent was in contact over telephone for a period of ten days. She had also admitted that she would not repeat such acts in future. In the above conspectus of facts, we find that the allegations of the second respondent against the appellants herein are too far-fetched and are not believable. 27. xxx xxx xxx 28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the 22 misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. 29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant- husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case. 23 30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows: “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.” 31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints 24 and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.” Observing the aforesaid, the Apex Court quashed the FIR, the charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court. 18 In the complaint so made, the complainant has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners without 25 being full particulars about date and place that all the petitioners including the husband treated her with cruelty. There is no specific allegation regarding anyone of the petitioners except common and general allegations against all the petitioners. 19 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present case, even if the allegations made in the FIR and the accompanying complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not, prima facie, constitute any cognizable offence or make out a case against the petitioners. The alleged acts, at best, may give rise to a non-cognizable offence, and as such, no investigation could have been undertaken by the police without the prior permission of the Magistrate in accordance with Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the complaint appears to be manifestly attended with mala fide intentions and has been maliciously instituted by the complainant with an ulterior motive to harass and pressurize the petitioners. The criminal proceedings initiated in such a manner amount to abuse of the process of law and are liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 20 Upon perusal of the pleadings, documents annexed, and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made in FIR No. 40 of 2019, registered at Police Station Nandini 26 Nagar, District-Durg, Chhattisgarh, and the subsequent Charge Sheet No. 97/2020 dated 15.03.2021, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the petitioners herein. 21 The FIR discloses no specific or distinct overt act against any of the petitioners. Most of them are either distant relatives of Petitioner No. 1 or individuals unconnected to the complainant, and do not fall within the ambit of "relative of the husband" as contemplated under Section 498A IPC. In the absence of such relationship, the registration of offence under Section 498A IPC is legally unsustainable. 22 Furthermore, the allegations pertaining to offences under Sections 506 and 508 IPC are vague, omnibus, and pertain to alleged incidents from the year 2010, whereas the complaint was lodged after an unexplained delay of more than 12 years in 2019, thus severely impairing the credibility and genuineness of the complaint. No permission from the Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. was obtained before investigation into these non- cognizable offences, thereby rendering the proceedings procedurally flawed. 23 The facts on record further reveal a history of litigation between the parties, and it appears that the present FIR has been filed with an oblique motive to harass and pressurize the petitioners, many of whom have supported Petitioner No. 1 in earlier domestic 27 violence proceedings. The present criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and are a clear abuse of the process of law. 24 Therefore, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. 25 Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. FIR bearing Crime No.40/2019 dated 19.02.2019 registered at Police Station Nandini Nagar, District-Durg, Chhattisgarh, Charge Sheet bearing No.97/2020 dated 15.03.2021 and all proceedings arising therefrom, including Criminal Case No.RCC/14549/2022 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, are hereby quashed and set-aside against all the petitioners. 26 It is stated that Respondent No. 4, Smt. Madhavi Sonwane, is the complainant and Respondent No. 5, Shri Amod Anand Sonwane, is her husband. It is also an admitted position that Respondent No. 5 has not approached this Court for quashment of the proceedings initiated against him, and he is presently facing trial before the competent criminal Court. 27 In view of the above, the prosecution and trial against Respondent No. 5, Shri Amod Anand Sonwane, shall continue in accordance with law. The learned trial Court shall proceed with the pending criminal case against him uninfluenced by any observations made in this order, which pertain solely to the 28 petitioners other than the said respondent No.5, namely Amod Anand Sonwane. 28 There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu