1 2025:CGHC:46233 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Order reserved on 11/06 /2025) (Order Delivered on 10/09/2025) CRMP No. 1061 of 2021 1 - Abhishek Tripathi S/o Shri Anand Kumar Tripathi Aged About 40 Years R/o A - 203, Amaltash, Moulshri Vihar, V.I.P. Road, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Official Address Director, Krishna Public School International, Sector 27/1, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Anand Tripathi S/o Late Poharisharan Tripathi Aged About 65 Years R/o 77/14, Nehru Nagar East, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Official Address Vice President, Krishna Education Society, Krishna Public School, Nehru Nagar Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Snehlata Tripathi W/o Anand Tripathi Aged About 64 Years R/o 77/14 Nehru Nagar East, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Nishant Tripathi S/o Anand Tripathi Aged About 43 Years R/o S.S.I.P.M.T. College, Sejbahar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Official Address Chairman, S.S.I.P.M.T. College Sejbahar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Aparna Tripathi W/o Abhishek Tripathi Aged About 39 Years R/o Avinash Counti, Sector 30, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Other Address Work Place Aparna Tripathi, Principal Krishna Public School Indraprastha Colony, Sarona, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ali Afzal Mirza, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Khanna, Advocate through ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.09.10 18:31:00 +0530 2 Video Conferencing and assisted by Mr. Anand Mohan Singh and Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma CAV Order Heard. 1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for seeking quashment of the order dated 02/09/2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No.3066/2021 {Aparna Tripathi Vs. Abhishek Tripathi & Others}, whereby the learned JMFC has registered the case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 294, 506B, 323, 384, 377, 120-B & 34 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioners, seeking quashment of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are that respondent no. 2/complainant has filed a complaint case U/s 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s 498A, 294, 506(B), 323, 384, 377, 120-B & 34 of IPC stating that the marriage between the respondent no. 2 and petitioner no. 1 has been solemnized on 26.01.2004 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. The father of the complainant on being pressurized and demanded by the accused persons/petitioners have given 51,00,000/- Cash and through bank transactions in account, Hyundai Accent Car, 1 KG Gold, Silver Dinner Set weighing 10 KG of Silver, A gold set of 5 Tola to petitioner no. 3, Gold Chain and Ring to petitioner no. 2, A gold chain to petitioner no. 4 and a set of Gold to sister in law, gold ornaments of 5 Tola to petitioner 3 no. 1, all the house hold articles, expensive cloths, cash amount to all in-laws and all the demands have been fulfilled by the father of the respondent no. 2/complainant. The respondent no. 2/complainant has alleged that the father of the petitioner no.1 have demanded Rs. 5 Crores and property from the father of the complainant/Respondent no. 2 the demand used to be fulfilled as per their capacity. The petitioner no. 1 and the complainant/respondent no. 2 resided in Pune Maharashtra from 2005 to 2011, wherein she was being mentally and physically harassed by petitioner no. 1, her sister Vasundhara who was studying in Indira College Pune used to visit her often at her residence and she was also a witness to the harassment meted out to her. Further it has been alleged that for purchasing the residential house at Nehru Nagar the father of the complainant has given Rs. 9 Lacs and a loan has also been taken by the respondent no. 2/complainant from HDFC Bank for the construction of the House. The bank statement, the loan statements the other documents have been annexed with the complaint as Schedule-3. The bank transactions showing the amount being transferred to petitioner no. 1 is annexed as Schedule- 4 & 5. To add to the harassment the property of mother of the respondent no. 2/complainant has also been forcefully being sold to the father-in-law i.e. petitioner no. 2 through power of attorney Mayank Sharma the property has been sold to the brother of petitioner no. 2 Pramod Tripathi. That out of the wedlock a son Adrit was born in the year 2007. In the year 2011 they came back from Pune but the petitioner no. 1 continued to harass her and suspect her chastity., the other accused persons i.e. petitioner no. 2, 3 & 4 used to encourage the petitioner no. 1 4 for committing marpit on her. The petitioner no. 4 Nishant Tripathi who is the Chairman of Shankra Raipur used to have an ill eye on her, when she disclosed this to her in-laws they said that in Tripathi Family all these things are common. The petitioner no. 1 since 2014 was having chat with another women and used to throw liquor party wherein she was forced to serve liquor to his female friends and other male friends. The father of the complainant has given almost Rs. 45,09,144/- to the petitioner in lieu of the demand raised by him. The petitioner no. 1 used to commit physical intercourse without her permission on account of which after 12 years of the birth of her first child in July 2017 she gave birth to a daughter Kandisha, she was also submitted to unnatural sex by petitioner no. 1. One farmhouse has also been given by father of the respondent no. 2/complainant to petitioner no. 1 through registered sale deed dated 14.02.2019. 3. On 19.10.2019 in the Director Room of Krishna Public School at New Raipur, the petitioner no. 1 has assaulted her sexually and have injured her tongue by inserting fingers inside her mouth, she was admitted and treated in Ramkrishna Hospital the medical documents bearing the signature of petitioner no. 1 are annexed as Schedule 10 & 11. The incident was reported to her sister in law Archna Mishra and brother in law Rakesh Mishra and the matter was reported by Rakesh Mishra President International Human Rights Social and Justice on 28.10.2019 at Police Station Tikrapara, complainant used to get harassed by the petitioner no. 1 & 2 mentally, when she used to go to school she filed an application before Mahila Thana for counseling. but they didn't even attended the counseling, in desperation she was constrained to inform 5 the matter to her elder father in law, but the petitioner no. 2 disrespected him, she reported the matter many a times but the accused persons in connivance of police officer succeeded in not initiating any proceedings against him. 4. The petitioners used to threatened the complainant, that they will be removing her from the post of Principal, she has been given her the charge of two schools namely Krishna Kids Awanti Vihar and Krishna Kids International Rajim and thus she has been pressurized to give resignation from education society and fraudulently a resolution was executed on 28.01.2020 and an agreement has also been executed on 01.01.2020. The complainant came back on believing the assurance of petitioner no. 1 to her matrimonial house on 02.06.2020 at Raipur and again after behaving normally for sometime Petitioner no. 1 started assaulting and abusing her and thereafter did anal and oral sex with her. 5. Petitioner no. 1 used to take money from the complainant, she left the house and came to reside at Amaltash Raipur in her friend's house on 18.06.2021 and has also got her examined by a Doctor. The complainant has been threatened by them saying that they are influential person and they would not leave any stone unturned for humiliating her, she went to the police station on 10.09.2020 for registering an offence but the police also gave the report U/s 155 of Cr.P.C., finding the offence non cognizable, despite the offences being cognizable offences, when no proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners/accused, the Respondent No.2 has filed complaint case before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 22.07.2021 for 6 registering the offence U/s 498A, 294, 506(B), 323, 384, 377, 120-B & 34 of IPC. 6. The learned JMFC on 23.07.2021 fixed the matter for evidence of the complainant before registration of complaint case and vide order dated 02.09.2021, prima facie finding the case against the petitioners and perusal of complaint and the evidences of the complainant witnesses registered the offence against the petitioners U/s 498A, 294, 506B, 323, 384, 377, 120-B & 34 of IPC and fixed the matter for appearance of accused on 07.10.2021 vide impugned order dated 02.09.2021. Hence this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the contents of the complaint and the documents makes it explicit that the documents have been manipulated just to implicate the petitioners for the aforementioned offences. He would next contend that only the bald allegations with regard to demand of dowry have been levelled and no document has been placed on record to substantiate the allegation of demand of dowry. It is further contended that for the last 17 years of marriage the petitioner No.1 and the complainant/respondent No.2 were leading a matrimonial life and it is only for the two years the complainant is making a frivlous and false complaints with respect to demand of dowry and the petitioners are also tried to settle the issue and transferred the property in the name of Respondent No.2. It is further contended that a Flat No.C-401, LA SALETTE, Hadaspar, Taluka Haveli, Pune Maharashtra has been purchased by Petitioner No.1 through amount paid by Anand Tripathi and the housing loan has been 7 taken from the IDBI Bank and the said Flat is being used by the respondent No.2 whereas the installments are being paid by the petitioners. It is further contended that a Boys Hostel has been constructed on the property jointly owned by the Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.2 and the amount of construction is being paid from the account of Petitioner No.2. It is further contended that the whole educational expenses of complainant/Respondent No.2 have been paid by the petitioners from the bank account of the petitioners. It is further contended that the amount of profit earned from the Hostel is also being deposited in the account of Respondent No.2. It is further contended that a Royal Green Property through Fastrack Finvest has been purchased in the name of complainant/Respondent No.2. 8. It is further contended that the learned Court below without application of mind and without there being any specific allegations with respect to demand of dowry only on the basis of the preliminary documents filed by the complainant has has registered the case. They would place reliance on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M.N. Ojha & Others Vs. Alok Kumar Shrivastava & others {(2009) 9 SCC 682}; Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. India Infoline Limited {(2013) 4 SCC 505}; Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation {(2015) 4 SCC 609} and would submit that before summoning the petitioners, the learned JMFC ought to have examined the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidences of the witnesses and then would have proceeded further only after due application of mind. 8 9. They would further place reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Lalan Kumar Singh & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra {2022 Live Law SC 833}; Sachin Garg Vs. State of U.P. & others {2024 INSC 72} and M/s J.M. Laboratories & Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh {2025 INSC 127} and would submit that without there being a clear statement of fact as to how and in what manner the demand of dowry and harrassment is made out the learned Magistrate has issued the process to the petitioners. 10. It is further contended that the allegations of unnatural sex which have been leveled are not at all corroborated by the medical evidence and the allegations are just to implicate the petitioners in a false case to mentally harass them. 11. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and would submit that the order of the trial Court is well merited which do not call for any interference. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that on 19.10.2019, the petitioner No.1 called the respondent No.2 in the Directors room in the school. Upon her coming, he yelled and screamed upon her. He doubted her chastity and strangulated her and threw her down from the chair. He even threatened her that she would be removed from her post/job. The same day in the evening, after the son of the respondent No.2 had gone to Bhopal, the respondent No.2 was making her daughter sleep when the petitioner No.1 in inebriated state entered the house and filthily abused her. He snatched the mobile phone of the respondent No.2 and starting texting vulgar messages to her friends. He 9 even leveled shameless allegations on respondent No.2 of having physical relations with her father. He forcefully tried to establish unnatural physical relation against the nature with respondent No.2 and during the same inserted his hands in her private parts and pulled her breast. The respondent No.2 tried to escape, however the petitioner No.1 forcefully pierced his fingers below the tongue into her mouth and caused severe injuries. The maids namely Tija and Varsha although witnessed the entire incidents but could not help the respondent No.2 as they were threatened by the petitioner No.1. The condition of the respondent No.2 worsened. Seeing the worsening situation of the respondent No.2, the petitioner took her to Ram Krishna Hospital where she was got admitted. Meanwhile the respondent No.2 managed to inform about the incident to her sister in law namely Ms. Archana Mishra, who happens to the daughter of elder brother of petitioner No.2. The injury caused by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.2 was grievous. The respondent No.2 underwent Plastic Surgery at the said hospital. Shewas discharged from the hospital on 21.10.2019. The parents of the respondent No.2 had come to meet her in the hospital where she narrated the entire facts. The petitioner No.2 and 4 too came to the hospital and threatened and dared the respondent No.2 and her parents in case she makes any complaint to the police. On 16.06.2020 the respondent No.2 faced the deadliest and brutal behavior at the hands of the petitioner No.1. Being completely drunk, despite strong objections and resistance by the respondent No.2, he forced himself unnaturally and established unnatural physical relations against the rule of nature upon the respondent No.2. The petitioner no 1 forcefully and 10 without the consent and despite severe objection by the respondent no 2 established sexual relation through anal route with the respondent no 2. Not even satisfied with this inhuman act of cruelty, he penetrated his penis into the mouth of the respondent no 2 and continued with doing this activity for almost 15 minutes. the respondent no 2 was almost half dead. She felt the choking. She retaliated, however the petitioner no 1 overpowered her. The respondent No.2 was completely tortured. She cried and yelled but to unavail. Next day on 17.6.2020, she went to her in-laws house and informed the petitioner No.2 & 3 regarding the in- human and dastardly act committed by the petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.2, instead of reprimanding his son, rebuked the respondent No.2 and made fun of her and told her that in his family these things happened and that it is her duty to satisfy her husband. The respondent No.2 informed her parents and her sister in law Ms. Archana Mishra regarding the acts committed by the petitioner No.1. That the above mentioned henious act of the petitioner No. 1 was committed upon the encouragement of the other petitioners. This offence is most henious and gruesome act committed upon a lady by a man. This act not only inflicts physical injury but leave deep impact into the mental and personality of the female i.e. respondent No.2. This offence cannot be termed as personal or private offence but such offence committed against the society at large. That the above mentioned ghastly act committed by the petitioners is the outcome of their persistent and continuous demand of dowry from the respondent No.2/her parents which could not be satisfied to the fullest. The parents of the respondent No.2 and the respondents did their level best according to their financial 11 status to satisfy the demands of the petitioners. That the petitioners had been continuously torturing the respondent No.2 for the deficient dowry and demanded money and property as they thought the father of the respondent No.2 can fulfill their demands. That the petitioners regularly extended mental cruelty to the respondent No.2 citing deficient dowry and demanded money and property in lieu thereof. That the lust of the petitioners did not end despite having received so much of money through ban transfer as well as properties from respondent No.2/her parents, and therefore, in order to teach her lesson, committed this henious and gruesome act. 13. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would place reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat {SLP (Crl.) No.7957 of 2024} wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has defined the Cruelty at para 8 and has convicted the appellants under Section 498 A IPC. He further placed reliance on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Zunaid Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. {Criminal Appeal Nos. 2628-2629 of 2023} wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Gopal Vijay Verma Vs. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha and others {(1982) 3 SCC 510} and B. Chandrika Vs. Santosh and Another {(2014 ) 13 SCC 699} wherein it has been held that a Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of a complaint merely on the ground that earlier he had declined to take cognizance of the police report. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra & 12 Others {(2021) 19 SCC 401} and Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta & Others {(2015) 3 SCC 424} and would submit that the present petition may be dismissed and the petitioners may be subjected to trial. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 15. From perusal of the documents it transpires that the Respondent No.2 went to the police station on 10.09.2020 for registering an offence wherein the police gave the report U/s 155 of Cr.P.C., finding the offence non cognizable. The enquiry report of the police dated 10/09/2020 is reproduced hereinbelow:- fcUnqokj tkap fu"d"kZ %& ekeys dk laf{kIr fooj.k bl izdkj gS fd vkosfndk vi.kkZ f=ikBh ds }kjk Fkkuk rsyhcka/kk esa f'kdk;r Øekad 7@20 fnukad 18-06-2020 izLrqr dh xbZ gS ftldh tkWp Fkkuk izHkkjh ds funsZ'ku ij eq> mi fujh{kd fnO;k 'kekZ }kjk dh xbZ gS f'kdk;r i= eas tkWp Øe esa viZ.kk f=ikBh vukosnd ifr vfHk"ksd f=ikBh] llqj&vkuUn f=ikBh] lkl&Lusgyrk f=ikBh] tsB&fu'kkar f=ikBh rFkk xokg /kUuq reZu ,oa jkgqy 'kqDyk dk dFku ys[k fd;k x;k A tks 'kkfey Mk;jh gS A vukosnu vfHk"ksd f=ikBh ds }kjk vkosfndk ds }kjk iwoZ esa izLrqr f'kdk;r i= ciqv@nqxZ@lhlh@vkbZthih@1101@19 fnukad 01-02-2020 dh f'kdk;r i= dh Nk;kifr fnukad 20-02-2019 dks f'kdk;r i= okil ysus dh Nk;kizfr fnukad 02-12-2019 dks efgyk Fkkuk jk;iqj dks f'kdk;r okil ysus vkosnu i= dh Nk;kizfr fnukad 31-01-2020 dks ,xzhesaV dh Nk;kizfr rFkk vkosfndk gh okV~lvi dh LØhu'kkWV dh izfr is'k fd, tkus ij layXu fd;k x;k gS A vkosfndk Jherh vi.kkZ f=ikBh us vius ifr] llqj] lkl ,oa tsV ds fo:} 'kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r fd, tkus rFkk fnukad 16-06-2020 dks vukosnd ifr vfHk"ksd f=ikBh ds }kjk 'kjkc ds u'ks esa vizkd`frd lgokl fd, tkus dk vkjksi yxkbZ gS ftldh tkWp fjiksVZ dafMdkokj fuEukuqlkj gS A 1- vkosfndk Jhefr vi.kkZ f=ikBh ,oa vukosnd vfHk"ksd f=ikBh dk fookg fnukad 26-01-2004 dks vkdka{kk gkWVy txnyiqj esa nksuks ifjokj ds e/; vkilh lgefr ls lEiUu gqvk gS A iq= vkn`r orZeku esa vius firk ds ikl gS rFkk iq=h dafn"kk vius ekWa vkosfndk vi.kkZ ds ikl gS A fookg djhc 16 lky gks x;k gS A 2- vkosfndk us fookg ds i'pkr vius ifr] lkl llqj dks ngst izrkM+uk ,oa ngst jde dh ekax fd, tkus dk vkjksi yxkbZ gS ijUrq vkosfndk us ngst ekax fd, tkus dk lk{; izLrqr ugh dh gS A 13 3- vkosfndk us edku Q~ySV ,oa uxnh jde vius firk ds }kjk ,oa Lo;a vkjksih vfHk"ksd f=ikBh dks fn;k tkuk f'kdk;r i= esa ys[k dh gS A ijUrq vkosfndk us edku] Q~ySV ,oa jde fn;s tkus ds laca/k esa dksbZ Hkh nLrkost vFkok lk{; izLrqr ugh fd;k gS bl laca/k esa vukosnd vkosfndk dk llqj vkuUn f=ikBh us vius dFku esa crk;k gS fd rFkk lacaf/kr nLrkost izLrqr fd;k gS A usg: uxj fHkykbZ edku uacj 77@12 fLFkr gS tks vkosfndk vi.kkZ ,oa vukosnd ifr vfHk"ksd ds uke ij gS A ftl ij orZeku esa vkosfndk dk ekrk&firk fuokl dj jgs gS rFkk mij Q~yksj esa Nk=kokl lapkfyr fd;k gS ftls vkosfndk fdjk;k Lo;a izkIr dj mldk miHkksx dj jgh gS A bl edku dks vkosfndk us vius firk ds }kjk jde fn, tkus ls [kjhnuk crkbZ gS A vukosnd vkosfndk dk llqj vkuUn f=ikBh us chl yk[k :i;s _.k mDr edku ds fuekZ.k ds fy, ,p0Mh0,Q0lh0 cSad ls fy;k gs ftldk [kkrk Øekad 534441751 gS A ftldk Hkqxrku C;kt lfgr 2334922 :i;s vukosnd vkuUn f=ikBh dh cM+h lqeu f=ikBh ds }kjk fd;k x;k gS A nLrkost ifjf'k"V ''k'' gS A 4- vkosfndk vi.kkZ ,oa vukosnd ifr vfHk"ksd f=ikBh iwuk esa jgdj ukSdjh nksuks djrs Fks A bl chp iwuk esa lh@401] ykW lSysV] gMilj rkYyqdk&gosyh] iq.ks egkjk"Vª esa la;qDr uke ls Ø; fd, gS ftldk [kjhnh jde vukosnd vkuUn f=ikBh ds }kjk Hkqxrku djuk crk, gS A ftldk 2383568 :i;s iath;u 'kqYd 102950 :i;s dk dqy Hkqxrku rFkk Q~ySV dks Ø; djus ds fy, 1500000 :i;s vkbZ0Mh0ch0vkbZ cSad ls yksu ysdj rFkk 'ks"k 986518 :i;s dks Hkqxrku vukosnd llqj vkuUn dqekj f=ikBh ,oa mldh iRuh Jherh Lusgyrk ds }kjk vkdk'k xaxk fLFkr nqdku dks fcØh djds izkIr jkf'k ls Hkqxrku djuk crk, gS A ftldk ekfld fd'r vkt Hkh vukosnd vfHk"ksd ds }kjk vkbZ0Mh0ch0vkbZ ds [kkrk ls Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk gSA ftldk [kkrk la[;k 809675100047348 gS A nLrkost ifjf'k"V ''G'' gS A 5- veyrk'k jk;iqj esa e- u- ,&203 gS ftls vukosnd llqj vkuUn f=ikBh ds }kjk [kjhnk x;k gS edku vkuUn dqekj f=ikBh ds uke ij gS A ftlesa vkosfndk vi.kkZ f=ikBh ,oa vukosnd mldk ifr vfHk"ksd f=ikBh ds }kjk fuokl dj jgs Fks A orZeku esa vkosfndk veyrk'k ds edku dks NksM+dj u;k jk;iqj esa jguk crk, gSA ifjf'k"V ''G'' gS A 6- vkosfndk us vius dFku esa ngst ds :i esa jde ekax fd, tkus ij vius firk ds }kjk rFkk Lo;a vkjksih ifr vfHk"ksd f=ikBh dks jde nsuk crk;kh gS ijUrq jde fn, tkus ds laca/k esa dksbZ Hkh lk{; vkosfndk us izLrqr ugh dh gS A vkosfndk ,oa mldk firk nksuks i<+s fy[ks gS A ngst ds :i esa jde nsuk rFkk ekax djuk vijk/k dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA ;g tkurh Fkh fQj Hkh ngst ds fy, jde nsus dk vkjksi f'kdk;r i= esa yxk;k tkuk lagsgkLin gS A 7- vkosfndk dh 'kknh o"kZ 2004 esa txnyiqj esa liUu gqbZ gS 'kknh ds ckn ls o"kZ 2005 ls o"kZ 2011 rd vkosfndk vius ifr ds lkFk iq.ks esa fuokl dj jgh Fkh ,slh fLFkfr esa vkosfndk us vius o`} lkl ,oa llqj dks fgalkRed joS;k viukrs 'kkjhfjd ?kksj izrkM+uk fd, tkus dk vkjksi yxk;k tkuk lansgkLin gS A pwafd ,slh ?kVuk dk vkosfndk ds }kjk fdlh izdkj dh lk{; izLrqr ugh dh xbZ gS A 8- vkosfndk us vkjksih ifr vfHk"ksd f=ikBh ij vkjksi yxk;k gS fd bl o"kZ ds iq= vkn`r ds gksrs gq, fcuk lgefr ds izrkfM+r djrs gq,lgok'k fd, tkus ls iq=h dqekjh dafn"kk dh mRifRr gksuk f'kdk;r i= esa ys[k dh gS A ;g vkosfndk dk vkjksi vO;ogkfjd izfrr gksrk gS A bl laca/k 14 esa vukosnd vfHk"ksd f=ikBh ds }kjk vkosfndk dk mez T;knk gksus ls nksuks ds lgefr ls larku mRifRr gsrq MkWDVj laxhrk flUgk L=h jksx fo'ks"kK fHkykbZ usg: uxj ls fnukad 18-8-2015 ls fVªVesaV djk, gS A ftlds ckn o"kZ 2017 esa dqekjh dafn"kk dh tUe gqbZ gS ftl ij ls vukosnd ifr lfgr lHkh ifjokj izlUu Fks A MkWDVj laxhrk flUgk L=h jksx fo'ks"kK fHkykbZ usg: uxj dk mipkj iphZ dh N;kizfr izLrqr fd;k gS A fcuk ifr&ifRu ds lgefr ds f}rh; larku mRifRr laHko ugh gS A MkW- laxhrk flUgk ls nwljs cPps dh mRrifRr gsrq mipkj dh iphZ nLrkost ifjf'k"V ''I'' gS A 9- vkosfndk us vkjksi yxkbZ gS fd nks o"kksZ ls yxkrkj 'kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld izrkM+uk fn;k tk jgk gS ftldk fpfdRldh; nLrkost dh Nk;kizfr izLrqr djuk ys[k dh gS A vukosndx.k ds }kjk ekQh ekaxs tkus ij f'kdk;r i= okil djok nsuk ys[k dh gS A bl laca/k esa fnukad 20-10-2019 dk esfMdy fjiksVZ dh Nk;kizfr izLrqr dh gS A ftlesa vVs.Mj ds :i esa vkosfndk dk ifr vfHk"ksd dk uke mipkj iphZ esa ys[k gS A bl laca/k esa vkosfndk us vius ifr ls vkil esa le>kSrk gksdj f'kdk;r i= okil yh gS A efgyk Fkkuk nqxZ esa Hkh f'kdk;r i= okil yh gS bl dkj.k vkosfndk ds f'kdk;r i= ij dk;Zokgh ugh fd;k x;k gS A vukosnd vfHk"ksd f=ikBh us viuh iRuh vkosfndk vi.kkZ ds }kjk okV~lvi esa vius }kjk vius ifr dks desaV~l fd, x, eSlst dk LØhu'kkWV fnukad 12-02-2019 dk izLrqr fd;k gS A ftleas vkosfndk us vius }kjk vius izfr ds lkFk ekjihV ,oa nqO;Zogkj djus ds fy, iNrkok dh gS rFkk fnukad 24-03-2019 ,oa 03-06-2019 dks LØhu'kkWV dh N;kizfr izLrqr fd;k gS A ftlesa viuh ifRu vkosfndk vi.kkZ ds gkFk esa fc;j dk ckWVy rFkk gqDdk ckj esa gqDdk ihrs QksVksxzkQ izLrqr fd;k x;k gS A tks izfrosnu esa layXu gS A vukosnd vfHk"ksd f=ikBh us vius dFku esa crk;k gS fd vkosfndk 'kjkc dh lsou djrh Fkh vkSj vius lkFk [kqn gh yM+kbZ >xM+k djrh Fkh fnukad 20-10-2019 dks jk=h esa vkosfndk vi.kkZ dks 'kjkc dh u'ks esa Lo;a fxxj tkuds ls mls pksV yxk Fkk ftldk mipkj jke d`".k ds;j vLirky jk;iqj esa Lo;a ys tkdj djkuk crk;k gSA tks laifRr gfFk;kus ds fy, >wBk vkjksi yxkuk crk;k gS A vkosfndk dk esfMdy fjiksVZ ifjf'k"V ''J'' gS A 10- vkosfndk us vius vkosnu i= esa vkjksi yxkbZ gS fd fnukad 18-06-2020 ds rhu fnu iwoZ ls vukosnd ifr vfHk"ksd f=ikBh ds }kjk 'kjkc lsou dj tcjnLrh ekjihV dj tku ls ekjus dk Hk; fn[kkdj vizkd`frd lgokl dj 'kkjhfjd :i ls ?kksj izrkfM+r dh gS bl laca/k esa fo'ouh; lk{; ugh ik;k x;k A vkosfndk us vius dFku esa vius fuokl veyrk'k ls fnukad 18-06-2020 dks ?kj ls fudydj lgsyh ds ?kj tkuk cryk;h gS A ijUrq mldk ifr ?kj esa >xM+k djds fnukad 17-06- 2020 ds 'kke dks ?kj ls pyh gkuk crk;k gS A vkSj vkosfndk ds lkFk ekjihV djus rFkk vizkd`frd lgokl fd, tkus ls badkj fd;k gS A og viuk 'kknh 16-5 lky gks x;k gS A ,slh d`R; djus ls badkj fd;k gS A vkosfndk ds }kjk yxk, vkSj lansgkLin izrhr gksrk gS A lk{; ugh i;k x;k A 11- vkosfndk vi.kkZ f=ikBh ds {kjk vius fn, x, f'kdk;r vkosnu ,oa dFku esa bZdjkjukek fnukad 01 Qjojh 2020 dks vkosfndk tks fd dafn"kk ,tqds'ku lkslk;Vh dh izflMsaV gS rFkk Lusg ,tqds'ku lkslk;Vh ds izsflMsaV vukosnd vkuUn f=ikBh ds e/; ,xzhesaV gqvk gS ftlesa nks Ldwy d`".kk fdM~l gkml uacj 17 lsDVj 2 ,lchvkbZ ds ikl ,Vh,e 15 pkSd jk;iqj rFkk d`".kk fdM~l baVjus'kuy fQaxs'oj jksM jkfte tks fd iwoZ esa Lusg ,tqds'kuy lkslk;Vh ds }kjk lapkfyr fd;k tk jgk Fkk dks vkosfndk ds dafn"kk ,tqds'ku lkslk;Vh dks iw.kZ :i ls lapkyu gsrq ns fn;k x;k gS A blls nf'kZr gksrk gS fd vkosfndk ds }kjk mDr rF;ks dks fNikus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k gS A ,xzhesaV nLrkost ifjf'k"V ''F'' gS A 12- vkosfndk vi.kkZ f=ikBh ds }kjk iwoZ esa fn, x, efgyk Fkkuk nqxZ esa f'kdk;r vkosnu esa vukosnd }kjk vizkd`frd lgokl djus ds laca/k esa mYys[k ugh fd;k x;k gS A ftlls muds }kjk vukosnd ij yxk, vkjksi lansgkLin izrhr gksrs gS A 13- vkosfndk ds }kjk ngst o vU; dk;Z ds fy, vius ,oa vius firk ds }kjk jde fn, tkus dk dksBZ lk{; izLrqr ugh dh gS A ijUrq vkosfndk ds }kjk laifRr pkgus ,oa jde pkgus ekax fd, tkus ij mUgs ekax fd, tkus ij mUgs iznk; fd;k x;k gS A ftldk fooj.k fuEukuqlkj nLrkost ds lkFk vukosndx.k }kjk izLrqr fd, gS %& A. vkosfndk vi.kkZ ds fy, gq.MbZ ,DlsaV lhth 07 9990 okgu vukosnd llqj vkuUn f=ikBh ds }kjk flVh cSad ls 5555634 :i;s Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS A ftldk fooj.k vukosnd ds }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS A nLrkost ifjf'k"V ''A'' gS A B. vkosfndk dh vkxs dh ,e0Vsd dh f'k{kk ds fy, vukosnd llqj vkuUn f=ikBh ds }kjk o'kZ 2014&15 esa 87600 :i;s Qhl ds :i esa Hkqxrku fd;k x;k ftldk fooj.k vukosnd ds }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS A nLrkost ifjf'k"V ''B'' gS A C. vkosfndk dh lkl vukosfndk Jhefr Lusgyrk f=ikBh ds }kjk o"kZ 2010&11 esa vkosfndk ds ekax ij 300000 :i;s psd ds ek/;e ls vkosfndk ds [kkrk esa LFkkukarj.k fd;k x;k gS A foojf.kdk izLrqr fd;s gS A nLrkost ifjf'k"V ''C'' gSA D. vkosfndk dks foRrh; o"kZ 2019 esa vkosfndk }kjk :i;s ekax fd;s tkus ij vukosnd ifr vfHk"ksd us vkosfndk vi.kkZ dks 5 yk[k fnukad 16-12-2019 dks vkj0Vh0th0,l0 VªkalQj mlds [kkrk esa fd, Fks A vukosnd }kjk izLrqr cSad LVsaVesaV layXu gS A nLrkost ifjf'k"V ''D'' gS A E. vkosfndk dh dkj Vks;Vk dksjksyk vfVZl okgu Øekad lhth 10 ,th 7378 gS ftls vkosfndk us Ø; fd;k Fkk mDr okgu dk fizf;;e o vU; nhxj [kpZ ds fy, 100000 :i;s ebZ&twu 2020 esa vkosfndk dks fn;k x;k A psd Øekad 423768 fnukad 08-06-2020 dks 56948 :i;s ,oa 'ks"k psd ls fn;k Fkk A nLrkost ifjf'k"V ''E'' gS A F. fnukad 01 Qjojh 2020 dks vkosfndk tks fd dafn"kk ,tqds'ku lkslk;Vh dh izsflMsaV gS rFkk Lusg ,tqds'ku lkslk;Vh ds izsflMsaV vukosnd vkuUn f=ikBh ds e/; ixzhesaV gqvk gS ftlesa nks Ldwy d`".kk fdM~l gkml uacj 17 lsDVj 2 ,lchvkbZ ds ikl ,Vh,e pkSd jk;iqj rFkk d`".kk fdM~l baVjus'kuy fQaxs'oj jksM jkftl esa tks fd iwoZ esa Lusg ,tqds'kuy lkslk;Vh ds }kjk lapkfyr fd;k tk jgk Fkk dks vkosfndk ds dafn"kk ,tqds'ku lkslk;Vh dks iw.kZ :i ls lapkyu gsrq ns fn;k x;k gS ftlls gksus okys ykHk vkosfndk dks gksaxs A ,xzhesaV dh izfr izLrqr fd; gS tks ifjf'k"V ''F'' gS A G. vkosfndk ds }kjk vius fn, x, c;ku es mYys[k fd;k gS 16 fd vukosnd tsB fu'kkar f=ikBh mu ij xanh utjs j[krs gS ds laca/k esa vkosfndk ds }kjk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k gS A tcfd vukosnd fu'kkar f=ikBh ds }kjk Qslcqd esa vkosfndk ds }kjk fd, x, desaV dk LØhu'kkWV izLrr fd;k gS ftlesa vkosfndk mUgs HERO ys[k dj lacksf/kr dj jgh gS A mDr LØhu'kkWV ifjf'k"V ''G'' gS A tqeyk tkWp ij ik;k x;k gS fd vkosfndk vius llqjky okyks ls lEifRr ds ykyp esa vkdj Ldwy d`".kk fdM~l gkml uacj 17 lsDVj 2 ,lchvkbZ ds ikl ,Vh,e pkSd jk;iqj rFkk d`".kk fdM~l baVjusa'kuy fQaxs'oj jksM jkfte dks izkIr dj laLFkk dk ekyfdu gS rFkk orZeku esa u;k jk;iqj esa dsih,l ftlds lapkyd vukosnd vkuUn f=ikBh gS ml Ldwy ds izkpk;Z ds in ij vkosfndk vi.kkZ f=ikBh inLFk gS ftls izfrekg Ms< yk[k :i;s osru] Mªk;oj] dkj] isVªksy dk [kpkZ fn;k tk jgk gS A bl dkj.k vkosfndk dks lEifRr dh ykyp vf/kd gks x;k gS A tks vukosnd llqj vkuUn f=ikBh ds }kjk lapkfyr fd, tk jgs ukS cM+s Ldwy esa ls ,d cM+k Ldwy vius uke djus rFkk tks Hkh lEifRr vukosnd ifr vfHk"ksd f=ikBh rFkk vkosfndk ds uke ls la;qDr :i ls gS] mDr leLr izkiVhZ dks vius Lo;a ds uke ij pkgus ds fy, ncko cukbZ gq;h gS A vkosfndk }kjk lEifRr ds izR;k'kk esa ckj&ckj vkosnu i= nsdj rFkk lEifRr izkIr dj f'kdk;r izkIr dj f'kdk;r i= okil ysrh vk;h gS A ftlls mldh eukso`fRr f'kdk;r djus dh izo`fRr nf'kZr gks jgh gS A vc vkosfndk }kjk ekax fd, x, muds 'krksZ o lEifRr nsus esa vukosndx.k lger gks tkus ij fcuk vk/kkj ds f'kdk;r fn;k tkuk ik;k x;k A vkosfndk }kjk vkosnu i= esa yxk, vkjksi vizekf.kr ik, x, gS A vkosfndk dks mlds }kjk fd, x, vkosnu dh tkWp ij ls QSekbZ'k ukfy'k fn;k tkuk izrhr gksrk gS A 16. From perusal of the above detailed enquiry conducted by the police it shows that it is a false complaint made by the respondent and there appears a dispute with regard to the property. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 has filed complaint case before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 22.07.2021 for registering the offence U/s 498A, 294, 506(B), 323, 384, 377, 120-B & 34 of IPC. 17. From perusal of the documents it transpires that the complaint has been lodged after 17 years of marriage, with no plausible explanation for the delay. This indicates an afterthought or malafide intent, undermining the credibility of the allegations and she moved application when resolution was passed against her. Complainant itself is a married lady 17 and she is Principal in the School of the Petitioners. 18. There are omnibus and vague allegations without specific roles or acts attributed to the accused. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another {(2012) 10 SCC 741} has held that where large number of family members had been included in FIR by casually mentioning their names and contents did not disclose their active involvement, cognizance of matter against them would not be justified and under such conditions, cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process and quashment of such proceedings would be justified. 19. Considering the over all documents and the facts of this case the FIR appears to be a tool of vengeance amid matrimonial discord. The Supreme Court in the matter of Preeti Gupta & Another v. State of Jharkhand & Another, {(2010) 7 SCC 667} has held that exaggerated version of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Allegations to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection, especially against husband’s relatives who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the matrimonial home of the complainant. 20. There is no medical or legal corroboration for the serious allegations under these sections. No coercive acts or threats to attract the essential ingredients of extortion are mentioned. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Gorakhnth Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh {CRA No.891 of 2019, decided on 10/02/2025} following the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Navtej Singh 18 Johar and others Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of law and Justice {(2018) 10 SCC 1 } has held thus in paras14 to 16 as under:- 14. From perusal of Section 375, 376 and 377 IPC it is quite vivid that in view of amended definition of Section 375 IPC, offence under Section 377 IPC between husband and wife has no place and, as such rape cannot be made out. It is pertinent to mention here that in the amendment in Section 375 IPC in the year 2013, Exception- 2 has been provided which speaks that sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife is not a rape and therefore if any unnatural sex as defined under section 377 is committed by the husband with his wife, then it can also not be treated to be an offence. It is quite vivid that Section 377 i.e. unnatural sex is not well-equipped and offender is not defined therein but body parts are well defined, which are also included in Section 375 i.e. carnal intercourse against the order of nature. While considering the constitutionality of Section 377 IPC criminalizes 'carnal intercourse against the order of nature' which among other things has been interpreted to include oral and anal sex. Obviously, Section 377 of IPC is not well-equipped as unnatural offence has also not been defined anywhere. The five- judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar while testing the constitutionality of said provision has held that some parts of Section 377 are unconstitutional and finally held that if unnatural offence is done with consent then offence of Section 377 IPC is not made out. 15. Considering the said legal position and in the light of amended definition of Section 375 and the relationship for which exception provided for not taking consent i.e. between husband & wife and not making offence of Section 376, it is quite vivid that the definition of rape as provided under Section 375 includes penetration of penis in the parts of the body i.e. vagina, urethra or anus of a woman for which consent is not required then unnatural sex cannot be made as unnatural offence between husband and wife, as such apparently, there is repugnancy in these two situations in the light of definition of Section 375 and unnatural offence of Section 377. It is also well settled principle of law that if the provisions of latter enactment are so inconsistent or 19 repugnant to the provisions of an earlier one then the two cannot stand together and earlier is abrogated by the latter. Thus, it is quite clear that at the same time, as per the definition of Section 375 of IPC, the offender is classified as a 'man'. Here in the present case, the appellant is a 'husband' and victim is a 'woman' and here she is a 'wife' and parts of the body which are used for carnal intercourse are also common, therefore, the offence between husband and wife cannot be made out under Section 375 IPC as per the repeal made by way of amendment and in view of repugnancy between both the sections. It is quite vivid that when everything is repealed under Section 375 of IPC then how offence under Section 377 of IPC would be attracted if it is committed between husband and wife. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Navtej Singh Johar and others vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of law and justice 2018(10) SCC 1 has considered the provisions of Section 375, 376 and 377 and held as under: “268.11. A cursory reading of both Section 375 and 377 IPC reveals that although the former section gives due recognition to the absence of "wilful and informed consent" for an act to be termed as rape, per contra, Section 377 does not contain any such qualification embodying in itself the absence of "wilful and informed consent" to criminalise carnal intercourse which consequently results in criminalising even voluntary carnal intercourse between homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders. Section 375 IPC, after the coming into force of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 has not used the words "subject to any other provision of the IPC". This indicates that Section 375 IPC is not subject to Section 377 IPC. 268.12. The expression "against the order of nature" has neither been defined in Section 377 IPC nor in any other provision of the IPC. The connotation given to the expression by various judicial pronouncements includes all sexual acts which are not intended for the purpose of procreation. Therefore, if coitus is not performed for procreation only, it does not per se make it "against the order of nature." 16. Thus, it is quite vivid, that if the age of wife is 20 not below age of 15 years then any sexual intercourse or sexual act by the husband with her wife cannot be termed as rape under the circumstances, as such absence of consent of wife for unnatural act loses its importance, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the offence under Section 376 and 377 of the IPC against the appellant is not made out. 21. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Manish Sahu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh {M.Cr.C. No.8388 of 2023} wherein the Court has held thus in paras 17 & 18 which are reproduced hereinbelow:- 17. Thus the consent of both the parties is necessary for taking the act out of the purview of Section 377 of IPC. However, this Court after considering the amended definition of "rape" as defined under Section 375 of IPC has already come to a conclusion that if a wife is residing with her husband during the subsistence of a valid marriage, then any sexual intercourse or sexual act by a man with his own wife not below the age of fifteen years will not be rape. Therefore, in view of the amended definition of "rape" under Section 375 of IPC by which the insertion of penis in the anus of a woman has also been included in the definition of "rape" and any sexual intercourse or sexual act by the husband with her wife not below the age of fifteen years is not a rape, then under these circumstances, absence of consent of wife for unnatural act loses 21 its importance. Marital rape has not been recognized so far. 18. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR would not make out an offence under Section 377 of IPC. My view is fortified by a judgment passed by Co- rdinate Bench of this Court in the case of Umang Singhar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Station House Officer and Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine MP 3221. 22. Further, the complainant and the accused have been married for approximately 17 years and are parents to two children. The allegation of unnatural sexual acts has been raised for the first time in the present complaint, with no prior reference or grievance made at any stage during the long duration of matrimonial life. This inordinate and unexplained delay in raising such a serious allegation substantially raises a doubt. The complainant is an educated woman, employed and appears to be well aware of her legal rights. The fact that she continued to cohabit with the accused without any complaint or protest against the alleged acts, and further, conceived and raised two children during this period, suggests that the relationship was, at least for a significant period, based on mutual consent and understanding. There is absence of Corroborative Material and the record does not reflect any medical, documentary, or contemporaneous evidence to substantiate the charge 22 of unnatural sex. No medical examination or expert opinion has been furnished to support the allegation, despite the serious nature of the offence alleged. The allegation, in the absence of timely reporting, corroboration, or consistent conduct by the complainant, is found to be improbable and lacks the degree of assurance required to proceed to trial. Respondent No.2/Complainant earlier also filed various complaints and subsequently withdrew the same wherein also no allegation of unnatural sex was leveled against the husband. 23. Therefore, in view of the above, the allegation of unnatural sex as levelled by Respondent No.2 cannot be accepted as a gospel truth against the petitioner No.1/Husband. Further no details of the alleged criminal intimidation have been provided to substantiate this charge. The prosecution appears motivated to harass and is an abuse of the legal process. The instant case relies solely on the complainant's statements, lacking objective or independent support as the complainant has failed to prove her case by way of any documentary evidence and only the bald statements have been made which do not inspire confidence to this Court. Considring the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar (supra), law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Gorakhnth Sharma (supra) & the law laid down by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Manish Sahu (supra) and the discussion made hereinabove in the preceding paragraph, this Court finds that the offence under Section 377 of the IPC is not made out against the husband/petitioner No.1. 24. Further, the Magistrate has not mentioned any reasons for registering 23 the case against the petitioners which is against the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and others {(2008) 5 SCC 668}; Anil Kumar and Others Vs. M.K. Aiyappa and Another {(2013) 10 SCC 705}; and Srinivas Gundluri and Others Vs. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation and others {(2010) 8 SCC 206}. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. 27. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 24 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. 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 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 25 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.....” 28. 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. 29. 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- 26 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 27 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 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 28 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 29 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. 30. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 02/09/2021 passed by the 30 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur in Criminal Case No.3066/2021 registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 294, 506B, 323, 384, 377, 120-B & 34 of IPC and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the same against the petitioners are quashed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Ashu