1 2025:CGHC:46676-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1659 of 2022 1 - Smt. Manisha Gupta @ Mansha Gupta W/o Vijay Gupta Aged About 55 Years Caste- Gupta, Occupation House Wife, R/o Deepchand Ram Hardware Store Near Esquire College, Police Station- Malgodam Cuttack,, District : Cuttack, Orissa 2 - Smt. Banita Behara D/o Mata Prasad Gupta Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Matha Sahi Tulashipur Cuttack, Police Station Cuttack,, District : Cuttack, Orissa ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kunkuri, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Aarti Gupta W/o Rakesh Gupta Aged About 32 Years R/o Bazar Road, Kunkuri, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State :Mr. Sangharsh Pandery, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 :Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.09.13 11:54:11 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/ Complainant. 2. Earlier by order dated 08/09/2025, this Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Jashpur to file his personal affidavit as to why the investigation of the case has not yet been concluded as the FIR lodged on 14/05/2022 and interim order passed by this Court on 10/10/2022 whereby it was directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners for 60 days from the date of the order which was subsequently extended on 20/02/2023 till the next date of hearing. In compliance of the said order, the S.S.P., Jashpur filed his affidavit on 09/09/2025 wherein it has been stated that “not being satisfied with the reply of the concerned Station House Officers and the Investigating Officers of the case imposed a punishment of censure upon four In-charge SHO's and the said censure entry would be made in their service book. It is further submitted that the deponent herein has further issued order dated 08.09.2025 imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment in salary for a period of one year without cumulative effect”. 3 3. It is very alarming that the explanation given by the Officer concerned with respect to the investigation being pending for such a long time does not seem to be a satisfactory one though he has taken some action against the erring investigating officer as mentioned in Para 9 of his affidavit. 4. So far as the above explanation is concerned, we hope and trust that he should monitor the investigation of each of the criminal cases monthly so that the investigation would be continued properly and further the trial, if any, as it hampers the proceedings of the trial if the investigation is not completed as per the prescribed provision under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C (Now Section 187(3) of the BNSS) as the investigation is still pending. Order on merits in respect of the present petition: 5. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners, are that petitioner No.1 is Bhabhi (बुआ सासा की बुहू) of the respondent No.2/complainant namely; Aarti Gupta whereas the petitioner No.2 is the sister of petitioner No.1. According to the petitioners, Aarti Gupta/respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint against her husband namely; Rakesh Gupta, who is co-accused in the instant crime and against the petitioners herein alleging that the marriage between complainant and co-accused Rakesh Gupta solemnized on 11.12.2020, according to Hindu Customs and Rituals. Before 4 days of marriage the other her husband and petitioner No. 1 had telephonic conversation with the mother of the complainant and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry. The complainant has lodged 4 the FIR against the petitioners and her husband alleging that the petitioners along with her husband used to demand dowry and harassed the complainant. Contention of the petitioners is that husband of the complainant was working under the husband of the petitioner No.1 and hence, by any stretch of imagination, petitioners cannot be held relative of Rakesh Gupta as is required under section 498A of the IPC. Thus no offence is made out against the petitioners. Hence the present petition for quashment of the said FIR. 6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the prima facie no case is maid out against the petitioners as no demand of dowry is made out by them. Perusal of the contents of the FIR would reveal that neither demand nor receiving of dowry is established against the petitioners and further prima facie it appears that a false and vague report has been lodged by the complainant against the petitioners to implicate them in a false and concocted case that too on the basis of vague allegations, hence, the present proceedings against the petitioners may be quashed. He further submits that merely on the basis of baseless allegation of telephonic conversation, it cannot be held that the petitioners have committed the offence, otherwise also the entire contents of the FIR reveal that neither demand of dowry nor receiving of dowry can be attributed to the petitioners. Hence this petition may allowed and the impugned FIR may be quashed. 5 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents have opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and further submits that the petitioners have committed cruelty causing grievous hurt against the complainant and demanded dowry from the mother of the complainant, for which offence under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been registered against the petitioners. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 9. 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. 10. 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 6 roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations, unless specific instances of their involvement in offences are made out. 11. 11. 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 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 been mentioned in the complaint. The complaint having been filed after proceeding for divorce was initiated by Nayan Chopra in State of Michigan, where Vanshika participated and divorce was ultimately granted. A few months after filing of the divorce petition, the complaint has been filed in the Court of C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar with the allegations as noticed above. The sequence of the events and facts and circumstances of the case leads us to conclude that the complaint under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act have been filed as counter blast to divorce petition proceeding in State of Michigan by Nayan Chopra. 25. There being no specific allegation regarding any one of the applicants except common general allegation against everyone i.e. “they started harassing the daughter of the applicant demanding additional dowry of one crore” and the fact that all relatives of the husband, namely, father, mother, brother, mother’s sister and husband of mother’s sister have been roped in clearly indicate that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed with a view to harass the applicants.....” 12. 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. 8 13. Very recently, the Apex Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayan & Others v. State of Telangana & Another {Cr.A. No. 5199 of 2024, decided on 10.12.2024}, has observed as under: “25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 26. In fact, in the instant case, the first appellant and his wife i.e. the second respondent herein resided at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where he was working in Southern Railways. They were married in the year 2015 and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the second respondent gave birth to two children. Therefore, 9 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 10 a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. 29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case. 30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows: “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions 11 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 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 12 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. 14. In the complaint so made, the complainant has only made omnibus and general allegations against the present petitioners, who are not directly related to the husband of the complainant, without being full particulars about date and place that the petitioners treated her with cruelty for not bringing money towards dowry. There is no specific allegation regarding the petitioners except common and general allegations that they have demanded cash amount and used criminal force upon her. 15. 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, who are distant relatives of the in-laws of the complainant, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is made out for prosecuting the present petitioners for the above- stated offences. 16. 16. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, FIR No. 96/2022 registered at Police Station- Kunkuri, District 13 Jashpur, Chhattisgarh for the offence under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is hereby quashed to the extent of present petitioners - Smt. Manisha Gupta @ Mansha Gupta and Smt. Banita Behara, who are not directly related to the respondent No.2/complainant. However, prosecution against the husband of respondent No.2/ Rakesh Gupta, shall continue and be concluded expeditiously. 17. It is made clear that all the observations made in this order are for the purpose of deciding this petition filed by the petitioners hereinabove and this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. 18. Resultantly, the petition so far it relates to the present petitioners stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar