1 2025:CGHC:27201-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1612 of 2025 1 - Shiva Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar Gupta Aged About 33 Years 2 - Ashok Kumar Gupta S/o Late Chaththu Ram Gupta Aged About 66 Years 3 - Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Ashok Kumar Gupta Aged About 63 Years All R/o E.W.S., 521, Housing Board Bhilai District Durg, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, P.S.- Mahila Thana, Sector- 6 Bhilai Durg, Distt- Durg (C.G) 2 - Smt. Nitu W/o Shiva Kumar Aged About 35 Years R/o Shop No.- 45, Shub- hash Market, Ward No.- 31, Zone-02 Khursipar Bhilai, Tehsil And Distt- Durg (C.G) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.P.Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24/06/2025 1. Heard Mr. B.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2 2. By this petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner(s) seek for the following relief(s): “1.It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR No. 22/2025 registered U/s 85, 3(5) of BNS, 2023, dated 25.04.2025 registered at Police Station, Mahila Thana, Sector 6, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. Any other relief this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice. ” 3. The facts, as projected by the petitioners, is that the complainant/ respondent No. 2, Neetu Gupta lodged a written complaint against the petitioners alleging that her marriage with petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 11.03.2024 and after the marriage when she went to her in-law’s house, the petitioner No. 1-husband and his parents started harassing her physically and mentally in the name of dowry, and on the second day i.e on 13.03.2024 in the name of first Holi festival, they sent her to her paternal house and when she was living in her parental house the petitioner No. 1 and his parents started taunting the respondent No. 2/complainant that she had not given laptop and given inferior quality items and demanded for money. However, when the relationship of the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 turned strained and sour, she returned to her parental house on 19.01.2025 and started living there. Because of the physical and mental torture, the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the Mahila Thana, Sector-6, Bhilai where counselling of the parties was conducted but the same remained futile and as such, an FIR under Section 85 and section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (for short, the BNS) against the petitioners was lodged. 4. Mr. B.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioner No. 1-husband and the petitioners No. 2 and 3 i.e. the in-laws have always treated the respondent No. 2 with love and affection and 3 treated her as their own daughter. The allegations are false and baseless. In fact, the respondent No. 2 and her family members had suppressed the fact that the respondent No. 2 was seriously suffering from anemia, lacks platelets, endometriosis and pelvic inflammatory disease and her treatment was going on even before her marriage and whenever the petitioners tried to take her to the hospital, she refused and stated that she would take medicine from her parental house only. 5. Mr. Singh further submits that the allegations with regard to demand of dowry and treating the respondent No. 2 with cruelty is totally false and only to harass the petitioners. The respondent No. 2 is of a dominating nature and she does not want to listen to any of the elders and lead life according to her own wishes. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it can be easily assessed that the FIR in question is vindictive and sheer abuse of process of law is been carried out. A perusal of the FIR shows that only general and omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioners and only to satisfy the ego and personal grudges she has filed the FIR, and if the criminal prosecution is to be continued then it will amount to miscarriage of justice and misuse of law. The ingredient of Section 85 or Section 3(5) of the BNS is not made out against the petitioners and hence the entire FIR is liable to be quashed. 6. Mr. Singh further submits that the petitioner No. 1 husband has already been granted anticipatory bail in M.Cr.C(A) No. 697/2025, by this Court in which this Court, vide order dated 09.05.2025 referred the matter for mediation before the Mediation Centre of this Court being matrimonial dispute and directed the petitioner No. 1 husband to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh. The petitioner No. 1 duly deposited the said amount on 15.05.2025, however, the mediation proceedings have failed. 4 7. On the other hand, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned counsel for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that the police has investigated the matter and after prima facie finding offence being made out against the petitioners, FIR was registered and the matter is under investigation. 8. Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/ complainant/wife submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and they have treated the respondent No. 2 with cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry and as such, this petition deserves to be dismissed at this stage as the investigation has not yet been concluded. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 10. From perusal of the documents appended with the petition, it transpires that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner No. 1 had deposited a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh before the High Court Mediation Centre on 15.05.2025, however, as reported by learned counsel for the parties, the mediation proceedings have failed. 11. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1, 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. 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 5 12. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others2 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 involvement in offences are made out. 13. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another3, 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 others4 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 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. 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 6 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 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.....” 14. 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. 15. 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 7 judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s 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 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 8 allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the 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. 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 and must 9 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. 16. In the complaint so made, the complainant/respondent No. 2 has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners without there being full particulars about date and place that all the petitioners including the petitioner No. 1-husband treated her with cruelty for not giving sufficient dowry. There is no specific allegation regarding anyone of the petitioners except common and general allegations that they demanded dowry. 17. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, material available on record, perusing the FIR in which no specific allegations have been made and only bald and omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Section 3(5) and 85 of the BNS is made out for prosecuting petitioner No.2 and 3, namely Ashok Kumar Gupta and Smt. Kamla Devi. 10 18. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, the FIR bearing Crime No. 0022/2025, dated 25.04.2025 registered at Police Station, Mahila Thana, Durg, for the offences under Section 3(5) and 85 of the BNS, so far it relates to petitioners No. 2 and 3, namely Ashok Kumar Gupta and Smt. Kamla Devi, is hereby quashed. However, the investigation against the husband-petitioner No. 1, Shiva Kumar, shall continue. The Investigating Officer concerned shall investigate the matter against the petitioner No. 1-Shiva Kumar, strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above. 19. As a result, this petition stands partly allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.06.25 19:49:02 +0530