1 2025:CGHC:41406-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2224 of 2025 1 - Ravi Banjare S/o Jagdish Banjare Aged About 29 Years 2 - Jagdish Banjare S/o Maniram Banjare Aged About 56 Years 3 - Raju Banjare S/o Jagdish (Wrongly Mentioned As Maniram In The Order Sheet) Banjare, Aged About 27 Years 4 - Manoj Banjare S/o Jagdish Banjare Aged About 24 Years 5 - Shanti Bai W/o Jagdish Banjare Aged About 52 Years 6 - Sushma Banjare W/o Manoj Banjare Aged About 22 Years 7 - Nidhi Banjare D/o Jagdish Banjare Aged About 20 Years All are R/o Village - Singhanpuri Police Station Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Anjoriya Bai Banjare W/o Ravi Banjare Aged About 25 Years R/o Village - Singhanpuri Police Station Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) Mobile No. 7203918014 (As Per Challan) (Complainant) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate. 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18/08/2025 1 Heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Ms. Anuja Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2 By this petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS), the petitioners seeks quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 11/2025 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.), the entire charge-sheet including Final Report No. 10/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, order dated 04.04.2025 taking cognizance by the Magistrate and charges framed on 05.05.2025 and the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1539/2025 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, in the interest of justice. 3 Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the prosecution in brief is that a report was lodged by the respondent No. 2/complainant at Police Station Mahila Thana, Kawardha, alleging inter-alia that her marriage with petitioner No. 1 took place in the month of March 2024 through the Chudi custom. It was further stated that for about 2-3 months after the marriage, she was 3 treated well and thereafter her brother-in-law Manoj entered into wed- lock in the month of July 2024, thereafter, her husband Ravi Banjare, father-in-law Jagdish Banjare, mother-in-law Shanti Banjare, brothers- in-law Raju and Manoj, Manoj's wife Sushma, and sister-in-law Nidhi started verbally abusing her with derogatory terms and saying that she does not work and also demanding money from her parental house and physically assaulting her. It was further alleged that the husband of the complainant demanded that she get one acre of land registered in his name from her parental home and she was beaten by her husband for aforesaid demand. It is further alleged that brother-in-law Raju instigated the husband of the complainant/non-applicant No.2 and other family members to harass and assault her and they acted as he directed. It is further alleged that one of her brother-in-laws namely Manoj snatched her mobile phone and prevented her from talking to anyone. Basically, the allegations were made with respect to demand of dowry and treating her with cruelty. It was also alleged that they tried to cause her death by beating her and administering her poison. On the basis of report lodged by the complainant, the police of Police Station Mahila Thana Kawardha registered an offence bearing Crime No. 11/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 85, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on 18.02.2025 and investigation was initiated. 4 During course of investigation, police recorded statements of the family members, arrested the present applicants and after completion of entire investigation the charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kawardha, Kabirdham (C.G.) as final report No. 10/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Upon perusal of the charge sheet and all accompanying documents, the learned Judicial 4 Magistrate First Class, Kawardha, District Kabirdham took cognizance of the offences vide order dated 04.04.2025 under Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the accused persons and registered Criminal Case No. 1539/2025 which is pending and subsequently on 05.05.2025 charges were framed against the all the accused persons and now the matter is fixed for trial of the case. 5 Mr. Shrivastava submits that the petty family disputes have been tried to be given a colour of criminal offence and all the family members have been roped in this case. It is also stated that the respondent No. 2 is not the legally wedded wife of petitioner No. 1 as she is the wife of Aghnu Banjare of village Manki, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli. The entire criminal proceedings are nothing but an outcome of malice and ulterior motive. The investigation was conducted in a biased manner ignoring the version of the petitioners. 6 On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that that the police has investigated the matter and after prima facie finding offence being made out against the petitioners, FIR was registered and the charge sheet has also been filed and now it is for the trial Court concerned to proceed with the matter. 7 Ms. Anuja Sharma, learned counsel appears and submits that she has filed her Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No. 2/complainant today itself. She further submits that this petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. the complainant's marriage to Ravi Banjare was solemnised in March 2024 through the customary Chudi rites. The fact that whether the respondent No. 2 is legally wedded wife of the petitioner No. 1 or not is a mixed question of fact which can be decided 5 only by leading evidence and as per the knowledge of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner No. 1 took divorce from her first wife as per rituals and thereafter married the respondent No. 2. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioner No. 1 married the respondent as per Satnami customs as both the parties belongs to Satnami caste and therefore the assertion that she is not a legally wedded wife without any substantial proof of the same cannot be a ground for exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS. 8 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9 From perusal of the documents appended with the petition, it transpires that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 16.07.2025, the parties appeared for mediation before the High Court Mediation Centre, but the mediation proceedings appears to have failed. 10 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. 11 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 6 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. 12 In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another3, it has been held by the Supreme Court relying upon the principle of law laid down in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others4 that criminal proceedings can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie offence is disclosed and further held that judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of oppression or harassment and the High Court should not hesitate in exercising the jurisdiction to quash the proceedings if the proceedings deserve to be quashed in line of parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) and further held that in absence of specific allegation regarding anyone of the accused except common and general allegations against everyone, no offence under Section 498A IPC is made out and quashed the charges for offence under Section 498A of the IPC being covered by category seven as enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra) by holding as under: “24. Coming back to the allegations in the complaint pertaining to Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. 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 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 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.....” 13 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. 14 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 8 the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 26. In fact, in the instant case, the first appellant and his wife i.e. the second respondent herein resided at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where he was working in Southern Railways. They were married in the year 2015 and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the second respondent gave birth to two children. Therefore, it cannot be believed that there was any harassment for dowry during the said period or that there was any matrimonial discord. Further, the second respondent in response to the missing complaint filed by the first appellant herein on 05.10.2021 addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting for closure of the said complaint as she had stated that she had left the matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a quarrel with the appellant No.1 because of one Govindan with whom the second respondent was in contact over telephone for a period of ten days. She had also admitted that she would not repeat such acts in future. In the above conspectus of facts, we find that the allegations of the second respondent against the appellants herein are too far-fetched and are not believable. 27. xxx xxx xxx 28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised 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. 9 29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case. 30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows: “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.” 31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must 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 10 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. 15 In the complaint so made, the complainant/respondent No. 2 has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners No. 2 to 7 without there being full particulars about date and place that all the petitioners including the petitioner No. 1-husband treated her with cruelty for not giving sufficient dowry. There is no specific allegation regarding anyone of the petitioners except common and general allegations that they demanded dowry and harassed her. However, there appears to be some allegation against the petitioner No. 1-Husband and as such, prima facie, a case is made out against the petitioner No. 1-husband only. So far as the allegation of administering the respondent No. 2 poison is concerned, the same has also not been found to be truthful and is an exaggerated version by the respondent No. 2. 16 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 No. 2 to 7, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under offence Section 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against the petitioners No. 2 to 7 is made out. 11 17 As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, the FIR bearing Crime No. 11/2025 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.), the entire charge-sheet including Final Report No. 10/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, order dated 04.04.2025 taking cognizance by the Magistrate and charges framed on 05.05.2025 and the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1539/2025 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, so far it relates to petitioners No. 2 to 7, namely Jagdish Banjare, Raju Banjare, Manoj Banjare, Shanti Bai, Sushma Banjare, Nidhi Banjare, are quashed. However, the criminal proceedings against the husband/petitioner No. 1-Ravi Banjare, shall go on in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above. 18 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: 2025.08.19 11:49:26 +0530