1 2025:CGHC:48924-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2724 of 2025 1 - Mohd. Nasbulain Son Of Sheikh Mir Hasan Aged About 48 Years R/o Gram And Post- Sagar Sultanpur, Ps. Bhagwanpur District- Sivaan (Bihar) 2 - Shabnam Khatur Wife Of Mohd. Nasbulain Aged About 39 Years R/o Gram And Post- Sagar Sultanpur P.S. Bhagwanpur District- Sivaan (Bihar) 3 - Gajrala Parveen D/o Sheikh Mir Hasan Aged About 31 Years R/o Gram And Post- Sagar Sultanpur P.S. Bhagwanpur District- Sivaan (Bihar) 4 - Kadir Son Of Lt. Masuda Alam Aged About 50 Years R/o Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur (Bihar) 5 - Jahan Aara Khatun W/o Kadir Ahmed Aged About 49 Years R/o Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur (Bihar) 6 - Mohd. Suhail Son Of Sheikh Mir Hasan Aged About 35 Years R/o Gram And Post- Sagar Sultanpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District- Sivaan (Bihar) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Home Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Station House Officer Police Station Ratanpur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.09.24 16:19:38 +0530 2 4 - Sabina Khatun W/o Md Suhail Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No.11, Khadowapara, Ratanpur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer and Mr. Manish Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24.09.2025 1. Heard Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3/State and Mr. Manish Thakur, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “A. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R bearing No. 120/2020 dated 19.02.2020 registered under Section 498A, 34 and registered in Police station P.S.-Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G) B. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the charge sheet filed by the Respondent bearing final report no. 187/2022, dated 14.06.2022 in FIR no. 120/2020 dated 19.02.2020 registered in Police station P.S.- Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G) under Section 498A, 34, of IPC 3 C. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order of taking cognizance dated 07.06.2022 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class kota district Bilaspur Section 498A, 34, of Indian Penal Code, 1860. under D. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order of framing charge dated 29.01.2024 in Criminal Case no. 862 /2022 framing charges against the petitioner under Section 498A/34, of IPC by Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, kota District Bilaspur E. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings in criminal case no 862/2022 pending before judicial magistrate first class kota District Bilaspur.” 3. As per the allegations of the prosecution, between the period from 12.05.2019 to 15.12.2019, petitioner No. 1 allegedly threatened the complainant/respondent No.4 with dire consequences at Khandoba Temple, near Dulhara Pond, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur. It is further alleged that during this period, the complainant was subjected to physical and mental cruelty for demand of dowry. The prosecution has also alleged that petitioner No. 1 used abusive and obscene language against the complainant, thereby causing annoyance not only to her but also to other persons who were present and heard the same. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed on 14.06.2022 for offences under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, took cognizance of the matter on 07.06.2022. Subsequently, on 29.01.2024, 4 charges under Sections 323, 294, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC were framed against the petitioners by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Siwan, Bihar. Hence the petitioner preferred the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire prosecution story is false, concocted, and without any substance. The allegations have been leveled only to harass the petitioners, and on account of these proceedings, the petitioners and their family members are facing undue hardship and irreparable loss to their reputation. Further, even assuming the prosecution case on its face value, no offence under Section 498-A IPC is made out. It is an admitted position that the marriage in question was not an arranged marriage. The family members of petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 had no connection whatsoever with the marriage, nor were they informed, nor did they attend the ceremony. This factual position is duly corroborated by the findings recorded in the inquiry report dated 07.07.2020. Further, the conduct of the complainant herself demonstrates that she is not interested in pursuing the allegations seriously. She had filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, which she subsequently withdrew on 31.10.2023. Another case under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act before the JMFC, Kota, was also withdrawn by her on 17.05.2024. Further, the complainant even declined to pursue her petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which stood withdrawn on 13.07.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that despite 5 attempts made for reconciliation through mediation as directed by this Court vide order dated 02.09.2025, the process failed. The petitioners, in compliance with the directions of this Court, have already paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No. 4 during the course of mediation proceedings. Moreover, respondent No. 4 has already remarried, and thus, continuation of the present criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would only amount to abuse of the process of law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly states that an act to constitute offence, the allegation should demonstrate the intention and act of the present petitioners towards the complainant, as the petitioners have never done any such act which falls under definition of Section 498A/34 of the IPC and even if entire case of the prosecution would be taken in its own face value than also the ingredients of Section 498A/34 of the IPC would not made out against the petitioners. He further states that no specific act of the petitioners have been attributed in the FIR and the petitioners have been implicated in crime in question only on the basis of vague, general and omnibus type statement of the complainant/wife with intent to harass the petitioners, therefore, allowing the continuation of criminal case against them would amount to abuse of process of law and thus, the impugned FIR, charge-sheet as well as criminal proceedings pending before the concerned trial Court deserves to be quashed. He also submits that petitioners No.2 to 6 have also been roped in the crime by alleging absolute vague allegation, which is no manner constitutes any offence under Section 498A/34 of the IPC. 6 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that considering the material available on record, it cannot be held that no prima facie case against the petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the IPC is made out. He would further submit that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is extremely limited as FIR cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient material available on record. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1, the Honb’ble 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 Hon’ble 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 7 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. 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 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 8 Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act are general and sweeping. No specific incident dates or details of any incident has been mentioned in the complaint. The complaint having been filed after proceeding for divorce was initiated by Nayan Chopra in State of Michigan, where Vanshika participated and divorce was ultimately granted. A few months after filing of the divorce petition, the complaint has been filed in the Court of C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar with the allegations as noticed above. The sequence of the events and facts and circumstances of the case leads us to conclude that the complaint under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act have been filed as counter blast to divorce petition proceeding in State of Michigan by Nayan Chopra. 25. There being no specific allegation regarding any one of the applicants except common general allegation against everyone i.e. “they started harassing the daughter of the applicant demanding additional dowry of one crore” and the fact that all relatives of the husband, namely, father, mother, brother, mother’s sister and husband of mother’s sister have been roped in clearly indicate that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed with a view to harass the applicants..…” 12. The Hon’ble 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. 13. Very recently, the Hon’ble 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: 9 “25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 26. In fact, in the instant case, the first appellant and his wife i.e. the second respondent herein resided at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where he was working in Southern Railways. They were married in the year 2015 and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the second respondent gave birth to two children. Therefore, it cannot be believed that there was any harassment for dowry during the said period or that there was any matrimonial discord. Further, the second respondent in response to the missing complaint filed by the first appellant herein on 05.10.2021 addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting for closure of the said complaint as she had stated that she had left the matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a quarrel with the appellant No.1 because of one Govindan with whom the second respondent was in contact over telephone for a period of ten days. She had also admitted that she would not repeat such acts in future. In the above conspectus of facts, we find that the allegations of the 10 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 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. 11 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 ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. 12 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 Hon’ble Apex Court quashed the FIR, the charge-sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court. 14. On careful consideration of the submissions and the materials placed on record, this Court finds that the prosecution case, even if taken at its face value, does not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 498-A IPC against the petitioners. 15. The allegations made against petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are vague, sweeping, and omnibus in nature. No specific role or act has been attributed to them which may constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. The settled legal position is that general allegations, without supporting particulars, cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution, more so when the respondent No.4’s own documents demonstrate that the marriage was not arranged or attended by these family members. The inquiry report dated 07.07.2020 (Annexure P-3) categorically records that the family members had no participation in the marriage. 16. Further, the conduct of the complainant/respondent No.4 during the pendency of matrimonial disputes shows her lack of intent to pursue the allegations seriously. The applications under Section 12 of the 13 Domestic Violence Act were filed and later withdrawn on 31.10.2023 and 17.05.2024 respectively. Likewise, the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance was also withdrawn on 13.07.2024. This repeated withdrawal of proceedings clearly indicates that the complainant/respondent No.4 herself did not wish to prosecute the matter further and has since settled her life afresh by entering into a second marriage. 17. Furthermore, this Court cannot ignore the fact that mediation efforts between the parties failed, despite the petitioners having complied with the Court’s directions by paying Rs.50,000/- to respondent No. 4. The remarriage of respondent No. 4 has now severed all subsisting ties of matrimony. Continuation of the present criminal proceedings in such a background would only cause undue harassment and misery to the petitioners, with no prospect of serving the ends of justice. 18. It is trite law that Section 498-A IPC is meant to address genuine cases of cruelty and dowry harassment. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has consistently cautioned against its misuse as a tool of harassment of family members. The present case is a clear example where prosecution is being continued despite the absence of any prima facie material. Permitting such prosecution to go on would amount to abuse of the process of law. 19. This Court finds that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, in view of the above circumstances, would not 14 only be oppressive but also a sheer wastage of judicial time. The substratum of the marital relationship no longer survives, and hence, the very basis of the allegations stands extinguished. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 862/2022 arising out of charge-sheet No. 187/2022 dated 14.06.2022 and charges framed on 29.01.2024 against the petitioners, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, District- Bilaspur are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet