1 2025:CGHC:7243-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 51 of 2025 Akash Vidhani S/o Ashok Vidhani Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Sindhi Dharamshala, Hemu Nagar, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Mahila Thana, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Rinki Vidhani W/o Akash Vidhani Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 25 Santarabadi P.S. - Mohan Nagar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.02.12 19:21:08 +0530 2 No. 1/State and Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the charge-sheet for commission of offence which is punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code registered as Crime No. 41 of 2024 before P.S. Mahila Thana, District Durg, and the subsequent proceedings registered as RCC No. 19514 of 2024 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2/complainant, whose marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 08.02.2021 at Ananda Imperial Hotel Bilaspur according to Hindu customs without any dowry. The entire expenditure of the said marriage was also borne by the family of petitioner. After marriage, both have been living in Bilaspur as husband and wife. After marriage, the respondent No.2 was ambitious to pursue a course of interior designing which was also arranged by the petitioner in Bilaspur. He also submits that all members of the petitioner are amiable, outgoing, and well- respected; both brothers operate the family's brick manufacturing Company. Together with his parents, older brother, and sister-in-law, the petitioner resides in a joint family. The petitioner has a deep affection for 3 the respondent No. 2. Even after this, when the petitioner asked the reason for the respondent No. 2 rude behavior towards the family members of the petitioner, she said that she never wanted to marry the petitioner or any businessman/trader, she wanted to marry a government gazetted ofÏcer. 4. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that petitioner felt very sad on hearing the words of the respondent No. 2 and considering Bilaspur city to be backward in comparison to Durg, she was not at all interested in living in a joint family saying that she did not like it and on every issue she would pressurize the petitioner to go and live in Durg and get him some work through the high connections of the respondent No. 2 family there. On being explained by the petitioner, she would repeatedly go to her paternal home without informing anyone. On going to her paternal home, it was known that on asking her, she would say that she wanted to meet her paternal family and brother-in-law and she would say that there was no need to tell anyone for coming to her paternal home, by this weird behaviour of the respondent No. 2 all the family member of the petitioner was worried and tried to do counseling for the same, but the respondent No. 2 was always reluctant towards the family members of the petitioner. 5. 5. Learned Senior Advocate states that the respondent No. 2 continuously taunted the petitioner that she married the petitioner only under pressure from her parents, and so acted abnormally in front of family members and also depriving the petitioner of conjugal physical pleasure, by creating false suspicion on the petitioner and subsequently pressurizing him to leave his family and reside separately in Durg and also 4 to do some business there and after being constantly harassing and not being successful, the respondent No. 2 refused to live with the petitioner and made a false, baseless complaint before the Mahila Thana Police Station, and after the continuous mediation the respondent No. 2 was reluctant to move-in with the petitioner in her matrimonial house, subsequently is residing at her paternal house in Durg without any cause and has also taken all her belongings with her which she brought with her to the matrimonial house and which were given to her at the time of marriage ceremony and afterwards. 6. It is further contended by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that at present Case No. 769A of 2024 dated 30.07.2024 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been presented by the petitioner before the Principal Family Court, and thereafter, when the notice was served regarding the said application the respondent No. 2 has registered the present case against the petitioner on false grounds. He also contended that taking all this factual matrix into the consideration then, a major question arises as to the act of the respondent No. 2 and the subsequent proceedings conducted by the authorities. Hence, the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’). 7. On the other, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the investigation has been done strictly in accordance with law and after completion of investigation the final report/charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the trial is in progress. 5 8. Learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2/complainant, would submit that there are serious allegations against the petitioner for treating respondent No. 2 with cruelty. He would further submit that all submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner relate to question of fact, that can be considered during the course of trial and that cannot be considered at this stage and that too in proceeding under Section 528 of the BNSS, as such, it is the case where the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the parties also that in compliance of the Court’s order dated 08.01.2025, the matter has been referred to the Medication Center for amicable settlement between petitioner/husband and respondent No. 2/wife, but both the parties are not ready to compromise the matter and to settle their dispute. Hence, the mediation has failed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or inherent powers 6 under Section 528 of the BNSS or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 12. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2/wife alleging that her husband/petitioner and her in-laws physically and mentally tortured her, demanding dowry of Rs.25 lakhs and a luxury car. The respondent No. 2 parents had already given her gold, silver jewellery, essential household items, and Rs. 2.5 lakhs as a gift during their marriage on 08.02.2021. the respondent No. 2 claims that her husband, an alcoholic, would beat her at night and have illicit relationships with other women. She also alleges that her husband had an inappropriate relationship with his niece. When the respondent No.2 confronted her husband about his behavior, he and his family members would taunt her, saying she would be treated this way until she brings the demanded dowry. The respondent No. 2 further states that when she went to Dubai with her husband, he would leave her in the hotel room and spend time with other women in bars until late at night. He also allegedly broke the locker in their home and took the gold and silver jewellery given to the respondent No. 2 during their marriage. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 reported the abuse to the Sector 6 Police Station in Bhilai, where counselling was conducted, but no settlement was reached. Subsequently, she filed a report against her husband and his family members at the Mahila Thana Police Station in Sector 6, Bhilai. 13. In view of the above, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, therefore, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. Hence, we do not find it a fit case to quash the charge-sheet filed by the Police Station Mahila Thana, District Durg (C.G.) for the 7 offence punishable under Sections 498-A of the IPC and the consequential criminal proceedings i.e. RCC No. 19514 of 2024 pending before the trial Court, as such, this petition is dismissed. However, we hope and trust that the learned trial Court would conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan