1 2025:CGHC:13583 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1378 of 2022 Nilesh Grasia S/o Sukhram Grasia Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 04, Babu Bagicha, Near Om Shanti Bhawan, Patan Police Station - Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kabirdham, District Kawardha (Kabirdham) Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Kawardha (Kabirdham) C.G. 3 - Neha Grasia W/o Nilesh Grasia Aged About 26 Years R/o Kumharpara, Ward No. 15 Kawardha, P.S. Kawardha, District Kawardha (Kabirdham) Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) CRMP No. 1381 of 2022 1 - Devki Grasia W/o Sukhram Grasia Aged About 65 Years R/o Ward No. 04 Babu Bagicha, Near Om Shanti Bhawan, Patan Police Station Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sukhram Grasia S/o Chamhaaulal Grasia Aged About 72 Years R/o Ward No. 04 Babu Bagicha, Near Om Shanti Bhawan, Patan Police Station Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Kabirdham, District Kawardha (Kabirdham) Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana, District - Kawardha (Kabirdham) Chhattisgarh. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.03.22 14:59:03 +0530 2 3 - Neha Grasia W/o Nilesh Grasia Aged About 26 Years R/o Kumharpara, Ward No. 15, Kawardha, P.S Kawardha, District Kawardha (Kabirdham) Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) CRMP No. 1394 of 2022 1- Seema Pande W/o Anand Pande Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Rajiv Gandhi Ward, House No. 19/1006 Sahupara Fafadih Raipur, P.S. - Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Anand Pande S/o Lakhanlal Pande Aged About 46 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Anand Kumar In Order Sheets), R/o Ward No. 13, Rajiv Gandhi Ward, House No. 19/1006 Sahupara Fafadih Raipur, P.S. - Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Kabirdham, District - Kawardha (Kabirdham) Chhattisgarh 2 - The Station House Officer Police Station - Mahila Thana, District - Kawardha (Kabirdham) Chhattisgarh 3 - Neha Grasia W/o Nilesh Grasia Aged About 26 Years R/o Kumharpara, Ward No. 15, Kwardha, P.S. - Kwardha, District - Kawardha (Kabirdham) Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) _________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.3 / : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate complainant Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21 .0 3 .202 5 1. Since the above captioned petitions arise out of same crime 3 number and same criminal case, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2/State and Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 / complainant. 3. The petitioners have filed the aforesaid petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashment impugned FIR No. 104/2020 dated 02.03.2020 registered at Police Station, Kabirdham, District - Kawardha for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC, charge-sheet No. 231/2021 dated 01.04.2021 as well as Criminal Case No. 768/2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham, District – Kawardha. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 02/03/2022, the respondent No.03 moved a complaint before the Police Station-Kawardha (Kabirdham) (C.G.) that the marriage between the Complainant/Respondent No.03 and petitioner Nilesh Grasia has been solemnized on 03/12/2016 at Kawardha as per Hindu rites and rituals. After that her husband i.e. Nilesh Grasia along with the other family members i.e. petitioner Devki Grasia (mother-in- law), Sukhram Grasia (father-in-law), Seema Pande (sister-in- law) and Anand Pande (brother-in-law of her husband) started cruelty with the complainant on the demand of vehicle and as 4 because of the demand done by the petitioners, on 02/02/2017 the maternal grandfather of complainant has given Rs.2,00,000 to her father-in-law and which was instantly given in the hand of brother-in-law of her husband. On 03/01/2017, the complainant moved to Hyderabad along with her husband namely Nilesh Grasia and on 23/10/2017 moved back to the Raipur and resided peacefully with the in-laws. But the in-laws of complainant always committed cruelty with the complainant by stating that the husband of complainant resided at America and always stated to left the house of her inlaws and when the complainant stated all this to her husband namely Nilesh Grasia, then the husband also committed cruelty with the complainant wife. On the basis of aforesaid information given by the complainant, offence U/s 498A & 34 of I.P.C. has been registered against the present petitioners at P.S.-Kawardha, District-Kawardha (Kabirdham) C.G. in Crime No.104/2020. 5. After investigating the matter by the Police authority the chargesheet has been filed U/s 498A & 34 of I.P.C. having Chargesheet No. 231/2021 and charges have also been framed U/s 498A & 34 of I.P.C. in Criminal Case No.768/2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham, District- Kawardha (Kabirdham) (C.G.). Hence these petitions. 6. Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made against the petitioners are false, afterthought and fabricated and the 5 complainant has misused the legal rights guaranteed to her by the legal system by maliciously and wickedly implicating the present petitioners in a false crime. The false implication of the petitioners is evident from the fact that as per the FIR itself, wherein no specific allegation has been made against the present petitioners but a vague and omnibus one and due to this reason, in the absence of any continuous torture or allegation to show and substantiate the claim, the prosecution of the petitioners is wholly unjustified. He further submits that the FIR has been registered against the petitioners on the basis of a simple dispute between the husband and the complainant, but there are no ingredients of such alleged offences. He further submitted that there is no such evidence which shows that the petitioners had demanded dowry or had taken Rs. 2,00,000/- from the maternal grandfather of the complainant. There is no material available on record against the petitioners as alleged offences, even otherwise, this allegation is omnibus allegation. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Shakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondents/State, would submit that after due investigation the petitioners have been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and prima-facie materials collected are sufficient to put the petitioners at trial and they are standing trial also and considering the materials available on record, it cannot be held that no prima-facie case against the petitioners for standing trial is made out. He would further submit that 6 jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC is extremely limited as FIR and charge-sheet cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient evidence available on record to put the accused persons to trial. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Taramani Parakh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others1 to buttress his submission that allegation of cruelty is question of fact to be established during trial, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.3/complainant, would submit that after due investigation, the jurisdictional police has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners in which there are serious allegations against the petitioners for treating respondent No.3 with cruelty and demand of dowry. He would further submit that all submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners relate to question of fact, that can be considered during the course of trial and that cannot be considered at this stage and that too in proceeding under Section 482 CrPC as all ingredients of the aforesaid offences are available to put the petitioners to trial, as such, it is the case where the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 1 (2015) 11 SCC 260 7 10. At the outset, it would be appropriate to consider the scope of interference in charge-sheet filed by the police against accused in extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. 11. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another2, 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. 12. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others3 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. 13. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another4, it has been held by the Supreme Court relying upon the principle of law laid down in State of Haryana and others v. 2 (2012) 10 SCC 741 3 (2018) 14 SCC 452 4 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 8 Bhajan Lal and others5 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 sequence of the events and facts and circumstances of 5 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 9 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 judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of 10 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 11 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 remain silent and forbear herself from making a 12 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” 13 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. 16. Having noticed the legal position qua quashing the FIR and charge-sheet, the question would be whether taking the contents of the FIR and charge-sheet as it is, offence under Sections 498A 14 read with Section 34 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners ? 17. It is the case of the prosecution that respondent No.03 moved a complaint before the Police Station-Kawardha (Kabirdham) (C.G.) alleging that the marriage between the Complainant/Respondent No.03 and petitioner Nilesh Grasia has been solemnized on 03/12/2016 at Kawardha as per Hindu rites and rituals. After that her husband along with other petitioners started cruelty with the complainant on the demand of vehicle and as because of the demand done by the petitioners, on 02/02/2017 the maternal grandfather of complainant has given Rs.2,00,000/- to her father- in-law and which was instantly given in the hand of brother-in-law of her husband. 18. From perusal of the complaint so made, the complainant has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners without being full particulars about date and place that all the petitioners including the husband treated her with cruelty for not bringing sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. There is no specific allegation regarding anyone of the petitioners except common and general allegations against all the petitioners that they have demanded cash amount and household articles. 19. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, material available on record, also considering the fact that no specific allegations have been made and only bald, omnibus and general allegations have been made against the 15 petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offences under Sections Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC are made out for prosecuting the petitioners and the prosecution against them for the aforesaid offences is covered by Category 1, 3 & 7 of para-102 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) and as such, liable to be quashed. 20. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, Criminal Case No. 768/2021 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham, District – Kawardha (Kabirdham) (C.G.) arising out of Crime No. 104/2020 registered at Police Station- Kabirdham, District – Kawardha (C.G.) for offence under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC is hereby quashed to the extent of petitioners i.e. Devki Grasia (mother-in-law), Sukhram Grasia (father-in-law), Seema Pande (sister-in-law) and Anand Pande (brother-in-law of husband of the complainant). However, prosecution against husband – Nilesh Grasia shall continue. 21. It is made clear that all the observations made in this order are for the purpose of deciding the petition filed by the petitioners hereinabove and this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter and concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending against husband – Nilesh Grasia strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of these observations made hereinabove. 16 22. Accordingly, CRMP No. 1378 of 2022 filed on behalf of husband of the complainant namely, Nilesh Grasia is dismissed and CRMP Nos. 1381 of 2022 and CRMP No. 1394 of 2022 are allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra