1 2025:CGHC:52814 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2711 of 2025 1 - Rajendrapal Kanwar S/o Dharam Singh Kanwar Aged About 38 Years R/o Quarter No. D 259, Police Station - Darri, Tehasil - Korba West, District - Korba Chhattisgarh 2 - Dharam Singh Kanwar S/o Late Ratiram Aged About 68 Years R/o Agarkhar Post - Jamnpali, Tehasil - Darri, Dist. Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - Parvat Bai W/o Dharam Singh Kanwar Aged About 45 Years R/o Agarkhar Post - Jamnpali, Tehasil - Darri, Dist. Korba Chhattisgarh 4 - Surendra Pal S/o Dharam Singh Kanwar Aged About 45 Years R/o Agarkhar Post - Jamnpali, Tehasil - Darri, Dist. Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - Sumitra Bai W/o Surendra Pal Aged About 40 Years R/o Agarkhar Post - Jamnpali, Tehasil - Darri, Dist. Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Smt. Dindeshwari Kanwar W/o Rajendrapal Kanwar Aged About 32 Years R/o Gram Mohanpur, Post - Sutara, Tehasil - Katghora, Dist. - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priya Kaiwart, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 29/10/2025 1. By this petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s): “(iv) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate order quashing setting aside the proceedings arising out of domestic violence complaint dated 29.04.2025 filed by the respondent under Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) bearing case no. 07/2025 in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that the marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent was solemnized on 14.02.2014 in accordance with Hindu rituals and they lived together at Dham Gohanpur, Post- Sutara, Tehsil- Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.). Due to irreconcilable differences, the parties started living separately, after marriage respondent always request to visit her maternal house in every 10-15 days without any reason and subsequently the respondent filed a compliant dated 29.04.2025 under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act alleging domestic violence against not only the husband but also against his aged parents and other family members, who have never lived in the shared household. The allegations made in the complaint are false, 3 frivolous, vague and baseless and have been made with an intent to harass and pressurize the petitioners. The petitioner no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 have been unnecessarily implicated, although they are living separately, and have no connection with the matrimonial dispute. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners under the Domestic Violence Act and the continuation of proceedings is a gross abuse of the process of law, and would cause undue harassment and mental agony to the petitioners. The respondent has filed complaint after the marriage of 10 years whereas respondent used to reside separately from husband after few days of marriage. There has been delay of 10 years in filing complaint. Moreover, there is no reason assigned for the delay in filing of the said complaint against the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent, would submit that after due investigation the petitioners have been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and prima facie material collected are sufficient to put the petitioners at trial and considering the material available on record, it cannot be held that no prima facie case against the petitioners for standing trial is made out. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 6. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar 4 Pradesh and another (2012) 10 SCC 741, 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. 7. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others vs. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others (2018) 14 SCC 452, 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. 8. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2019 SCC Online SC 620, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon the principles of law laid down in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, 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 5 cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument 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 498-A IPC is made out and quashed the charges for offence under Section 498-A 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 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 6 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....." 9. 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. 10. 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 7 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 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 8 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 9 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 10 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. Hence, the present case at hand falls 11 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.” 11. Observing the aforesaid, the Apex Court, quashed the FIR, the charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial court. 12. The complainant has made the complaint that non-applicant no. 1 forcibly left the applicant at her parent’s house on Rakhi in August, 2015 saying that he had been posted in Rajnandgaon and would come to pick her up when he will return. However, applicant no. 1 did not came to pick the applicant and to prove himself good, has filed a suit under Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, seeking restitution of marital rights. This was settled in a Lok Adalat on 08.04.2017, based on a compromise, stating that Respondent no. 1 would now maintain cordial relations with the applicant. The applicant had wanted to live together from the very beginning, so she immediately agreed to go with him. Non- applicant no. 1 left saying that he would come to pick her up after two days but he never returned. The applciant filed a complaint at the police station and also to the Superintendent of Police. By the passing of time, the applicant learned that the non-applicant no. 1 is going to marry his female friend Gayatri Kanwar for the second time about which she made a complaint in Katghora Police 12 Station. In 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. There is no specific allegation regarding anyone of the petitioners except common and general allegations against all the petitioners that they used to taunt her over her looks. 13. 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 petitioner no. 2 to 5. it is also pertinent to mention here that the present petitioner is currently residing at Rajnandgaon and petitioner no. 2 to 5 are residing at Tehsil Darri, District- Korba (C.G.) and they were not residing with the present respondent, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that prima facie no offence under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is made out for prosecuting petitioner no. 2- Dharam Singh Kanwar, petitioner no. 3- Parvat Bai, petitioner no. 4- Surendra Pal, petitoner no. 5- Sumitra Bai for the above- stated offences. 14. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, the proceedings under Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Katghora, 13 District- Korba (C.G.) bearing case no. 07/2025 is hereby quashed in respect of petitioner no. 2- Dharam Singh Kanwar, petitioner no. 3- Parvat Bai, petitioner no. 4- Surendra Pal, petitoner no. 5- Sumitra Bai. Prosecution against husband/petitioner no. 1- Rajendrapal Kanwar shall continue. The concerned trial court will decide the pending case pending against petitioner no. 1- Rajendrapal Kanwar strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of these observations made hereinabove. 15. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima