1 2025:CGHC:8846-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 73 of 2025 1 - Laxmikant Shrivas S/o Nokhram Shrivas, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Bundela, Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Bindwasni Shrivas W/o Nokhram Shrivas, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Bundela, Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Nokhram Shrivas S/o Mohan Lal Shrivas, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Bundela, Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Dwarika Prasad Shrivas S/o Nokhram Shrivas, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Bundela, Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Sunil Shrivas S/o Jeetram Shrivas, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Salkhan, Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa ( C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry of Home, Mahabnadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Station House Officer, Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Rashmi Shrivas W/o Laxmikant Shrivas, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village-Bundela, Police Station-Shivrinarayan, Presently Residing At Village Bokrel, Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Complainant) Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate. For State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20-02-2025 1. Heard Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 and in exercise thereof call for the records, if necessary, admit the petition and may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R. dated 30.08.2024 registered at Police Station – Baloda, District – Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) bearing Crime No. 306/2024, Chargesheet dated 11.11.2024 bearing Chargesheet No. 288/2024 for offence punishable under Section 498-A and 34 of the IPC by the Police Station -Baloda, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), Cognizance Order (First Order Sheet) dated 02.12.2024 in Criminal Case No. 1277/2024 which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 [Annexure – P/1] and (if any), all consequent proceedings incidental & accidental thereto and orders prejudicial to the petitioner herein and/or pass such other orders in favour of the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem it fit in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that marriage of petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.3 was performed on 11-06- 2023. The incident is alleged to have been occurred since 11-06- 2023 to 10-12-2023. Petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law, Petitioner No.3 is father-in-law, Petitioner No.4 is the brother-in- law (brother of petitioner No.1) and Petitioner No.5 is brother-in- law (son-in-law of petitioners No.2 and 3) of the complainant/respondent No.3. Petitioner No.2 and 3 are old aged persons and petitioner No.3 is patient of sugar and heart disease. Petitioner No.5 (son-in-law of petitioners No.2 and 3) is a Government servant who is residing separately from the matrimonial house of the complainant/respondent No.2. The allegations made in the complaint as well in the FIR are general and omnibus and they do not constitute offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. Therefore, the petition may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that charge has been framed in the matter. The interim order passed in the present petition dated 09-01-2025 has been vacated by this Court vide order dated 10-02-2025 as the petitioner No.1 did not comply with the order dated 09-01-2025. 4 5. There are allegations against the petitioners that they harassed the complainant for demand of dowry. It has been further stated in the FIR that she has been continuously subjected to cruelty by the petitioners. Further considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the facts that the charges have already been framed against the petitioners and the interim order was vacated on the last occasion and an effort was made for getting the matter amicably settled through medication process, but the petitioner No.1 has expressed his inability for mediation as he was not able to deposit the amount for the mediation, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil