1 2025:CGHC:34829-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1956 of 2025 1 - Bhupendra Kumar Yadav S/o Chintaram Yadav Aged About 34 Years 2 - Chintaram Yadav S/o Late Shri Ratan Lal Yadav Aged About 65 Years 3 - Smt. Devki Yadav W/o Chintaram Yadav Aged About 62 Years 4 - Prakhar Yadav (wrongly mentioned as Prokhar Yadav in the impugned order) S/o Chintaram Yadav Aged About 23 Years All the above petitioners R/o Ward No. 57, Near Shiv Temple, Ram Nagar, Urla P.S. Mohan Nagar, District Durg, (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Deepti Yadav W/o Hemant Kumar Yadav Aged About 31 Years R/o Yadav Mohalla, Kosa Nagar, Supela, P.S. Supela, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Of Police Station Mahila Thana, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Ranjana Yadu @ Harsha Yadav W/o Bhupendra Kumar Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Sawni, Tehsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 22/07/2025 1 Heard Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, 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): “A. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR bearing No. 16/2024 filed at P.S.- Mahila Thana, Durg dated 08.03.2024, under Sections 498A and 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. B. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the chargesheet bearing No. 22/2024, filed by the police of Police Station- Mahila Thana, Durg (C.G) on 11.05.2024 under Sections 498A and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 pursuant to FIR bearing No. 16/2024 filed at P.S. Mahila Thana, Durg dated 08.03.2024. C. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order taking cognizance dated 22.06.2024 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, under Section 498A, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioners. D. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the proceedings pending in Regular Criminal Case No. 8052/2024 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District Durg (C.G) file pursuant to registration of FIR bearing No. 16/2024 dated 08.03.2024 filed at P.S.- Mahila Thana, Durg on the basis of complaint made by respondent No. 02. against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. E. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deems fit and proper.” 3 The facts, as projected by the petitioners, is that the petitioners are accused in FIR bearing No. 16/2024 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, Durg dated 08.03.2024, under Sections 498A and 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 filed at the instance of respondent No. 2 which is pending as RCC No. 8052/2019 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G). 4 The petitioner No. 01 is the husband of respondent No. 2, petitioner No. 2 and 3 are father and mother of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 4 and 5 are brother and sister of petitioner No. 1. The respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the police on 02.09.2023 alleging that she was married to the petitioner No. 1on 09.02.2020 as per the Hindu customs and rituals with the consent of the family members at Village-Tarra, Tehsil Patan, 3 Durg. The complainant thereafter started residing at her matrimonial house in Urla, District Durg. Thereafter, on 06.10.2020 the complainant went to live along with her husband/petitioner No. 01 at Kanker where he used to work. The petitioner No. 1 by his conduct started harassing the complainant and did not take care of her and did not provide for her food. The family of the complainant counselled the parties and advised them to live amicably. The petitioner No. 1 also filed a divorce case against the complainant. The complainant again filed a complaint for registration of FIR before the police on 06.03.2024. On the basis of the complaint of the respondent No. 2, the FIR dated 08.03.2024 under challenge was registered against the petitioners. 5 During the investigation the respondent No. 2 has merely given one list of articles which she claimed as Streedhan and there was no other material placed on record to prove the mental or physical cruelty alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. 6 Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioner No. 1 had earlier on 10.04.2023 filed an application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing C.S. No. 375/2023 before learned Family Court, Durg seeking divorce from the respondent No. 2 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion for 2 years. The respondent No.2 appeared before the learned Family Court on 02.09.2023 and thereafter, filed a complaint before the police on the same day. The respondent No.2 has thereafter filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the petitioner No. 1 only on 02.02.2024 after the petitioner No.1 filed an application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The same is pending before learned Family Court, Durg as Criminal M.J.C. No. 176/2024 wherein vide order dated 4 20.02.2025 the petitioner No. 1 has been directed to pay an interim maintenance amount of Rs.5,000 per month to the complainant herein. 7 Mr. Agrawal submits that the petitioner No.1 is working as a government servant as Data Entry Operator at the office of Commissioner, Land Records and the family members specially the petitioner no.2 and 3 are dependent on him. The petitioner No. 1 earns a sum of Rs.50,350/- per month, however after deduction he receives a net salary of Rs.46,003/- per month. A bare perusal of the chargesheet and the complaint filed by the private respondent to the police would show that mere general and omnibus allegations have been made by the complainant against the petitioners. Furthermore, the respondent No. 2 has herself stated that she has filed the complaint after she received the divorce notice from the petitioner No.1 which clearly shows that the complainant herein has filed the FIR as a counterblast with an intention to harass the petitioners. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, {2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682}, wherein the Apex Court has quashed the proceeding under Section 498A IPC on the ground that the complaint had been filed only after the complainant came to know that the husband has filed for divorce. The allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence as against the petitioners. A bare perusal of the prosecution story, at any point, does not even slightly indicate that any offence has been committed by the petitioners and the story in itself is contradictory. There is no evidence in the complaint that goes against the petitioners. Just to harass the petitioners, not only the parents, but the brother and the married sister who lives elsewhere, has also been made an accused in this case. In the matter of Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi 5 Ravindra Babu, (2009) 11 SCC 203], the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that when there is no concrete and direct allegation against the accused ascribing any definite role to each of the accused and when prima facie evidence is very bald and vague the proceedings are liable to be quashed. There is no specific evidence against the petitioner placed before the Court. On a perusal of FIR and all other documents accompanying it can be concluded that criminal proceedings against the petitioner will be an abuse of process of court. Further reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, {(2009) 10 SCC 184}. 8 On the other hand, Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that since the the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 disclosed commission of cognizable offence, the police was bound to register the FIR against the petitioners and investigate the matter. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court of law. 9 Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/ complainant/wife submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and they have treated her with cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry and as such, this petition deserves to be dismissed. There are ample evidence on record to hold the petitioners guilty. 10 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 11 It transpires that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 25.06.2025, the parties appeared for mediation before the High Court Mediation Centre, but the mediation proceedings between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 have failed. 6 12 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. 13 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. 14 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 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. 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.....” 15 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 8 SCC 591}, had quashed the FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 16 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 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 9 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 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 10 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 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. 17 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 11 demanded dowry. Further, the petitioner No. 5 who resides separately from other petitioners, has also been roped in this case. 18 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 489A and 34 of the IPC against the petitioners No. 2 to 5 is made out. 19 As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, the FIR bearing Crime No. 16/2024, registered at Police Station, Mahila Thana, Durg, dated 08.03.2024 for the offences under Sections 498A and 34 of the IPC, the charge sheet bearing No. 22/2024,dated 11.05.2024 the order taking cognizance dated 22.06.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg under Sections 498A and 34 of the IPC as well as the Regular Criminal Case No. 8052/2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District Durg, so far it relates to the petitioners No. 2 to 5, namely Chintaram Yadav, Smt. Devki Yadav, Prakhar Yadav and Smt. Deepti Yadav, are hereby quashed. However, the criminal trial against the husband-petitioner No. 1- Bhupendra Kumar Yadav, shall continue. The trial Court concerned shall proceed against the petitioner No. 1-Bhupendra Kumar Yadav only, strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above. 20 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: 2025.07.23 12:23:22 +0530