1 2025:CGHC:52776 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2721 of 2025 1 - Abdul Rajjak S/o Abdul Salam Aged About 62 Years. 2 - Smt. Akila Begum W/o Abdul Rajjak, Aged About 52. 3 - Takbiyat Sheikh D/o Abdul Rajjak Aged About 24 Years. 4 - Mohammad Aarif S/o Abdul Rajjak Asarfi Aged About 27 Years. All are R/o Bhartiya Nagar, Near Raja Masjid, Tahsil - Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus Aashifa Bee D/o Sheikh Ramjan, Aged About 23 Years R/o Tarbahar, P.S. Tarbahar, Tahsil- Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/Complainant : Mr. Syed. AH Rizvi, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 29/10/2025 1. Petitioners have filed this petition with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and thereby the criminal proceeding under 2 section 12 of Domestic Violence act pending before the Judicial Magistrate first Class Bilaspur Ç.G in MJC case No 370/2025, may be quashed, in the interest of Justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that marriage of complainant-respondent/Aashifa Bee was solemnized with petitioner No.4/Aarif on 28.12.2022 as per Muslim Rites and Customs. The allegation leveled against the petitioners are that after marriage, respondent-wife went to her matrimonial house for leading her conjugal relationship where on the next day her mobile called for and both the sim cards of mobile have been broken and said mobile has been held by the petitioners. Petitioners/mother in law Akila Begum & sister-in-law Takbiyat Sheikh has cut the hair of respondent-wife stating that she is a witch, ever since you got married to petitioner No.4/Aarif, his business has stopped. Respondent-complainant has suffered a lot of mental and physical torture due to such taunting. Petitioner/father in law Abdul Rajjak Asrafi has burnt the hands of the respondent by the cigarette which is still present on her hands. When complainant was three months pregnant, she told her husband/respondent No.4/Aarif about her pregnancy, her husband used to bring different kinds of medicines for the complainant. Complainant took the said medicines and on 12th April, 2022 she felt severe pain in her stomach and, thereafter, she had a miscarriage and her health started deteriorating. Petitioners got scared and took her to Ashok Prasruti Hospital and at that time, 3 the complainant was unconscious. When the complainant's health improved a bit, petitioners started taunting her, her husband respondent No.4/Aarif started abusing the complainant by using filthy language and started beating her. Fed-up with said harassment, complainant came to her parents' house on 3rd August 2023 and started staying there. Based upon report made by respondent regarding harassment/torture and demand of dowry by the petitioners, FIR has been registered against the petitioners for offence under Section 498 A, 34 of IPC. Complainant has also filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“the D.V. Act” for short) against the petitioners before the concerned Judicial Magistrate first Class, which is pending for consideration. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after marriage, it was found that complainant is having an affair with another person before getting married to the petitioner no.4 and she still has the affair with him, even after the marriage, she has admitted her mistake. Vide a compromise agreement dated 28/03/2023 which was made in presence of the family members and other community members, respondent apologized for her mistake and she has given a last opportunity to correct her mistake and live a happy and peaceful life with her husband and she admitted that she will not repeat her mistakes again. After 08 months of the marriage on 03/08/2023, complainant left the house of the 4 petitioners without any reason and without informing anyone, hence, petitioner no.04/husband moved an application on 03/08/2023 before the concerned Mahila Thana, Bilaspur stating therein that his wife has left his house without informing anyone. Complainant on 20/10/2023 filed a fake and fabricated complaint at police station -Tarbahar, upon which, the petitioner and the complainant were referred to go through a counselling session at Mahila Thana Bilaspur for resolving the dispute/issue. On 01/11/2023, the petitioner and the complainant participated in their first counselling proceeding at Mahila Thana Bilaspur, thereafter the second session was on 08/11/2023 and the final session was on 22/11/2023 when they could not resolve the issue through counselling as the complainant was not ready to settle the dispute. Complainant in order to falsely implicate the petitioners again moved a complain at Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur against the petitioners and based upon which, FIR was registered under Section 498-A & 34 of IPC. The petitioners have filed an petition (CRMP No.678/2024) under Section 482 of Criminal procedure code for setting aside the said first information report before Division Bench of this Court, which has been allowed vide order dated 09.07.2024 and alleged FIR has been quashed. Learned Counsel further contended that the allegation in application filed by complainant under under Section 12 of DV Act are of same allegation as lodged by complainant against the petitioners in crime No.59/2024 for commission of offence under 5 Section 498A and 34 of Indian Penal code, which has been quashed by Division Bench of this Court in CRMP No.678/2024 vide order dated 09.07.2024 on the ground that only a general allegation has been leveled against the petitioners that they treated her with Physical and mental cruelty, demanded dowry in the form of cash, but there is no any specific date or time mentioned in the first information report as to on which date and at which time the respondent was treated with cruelty or demand of dowry was made by whom and only a bald and general allegation has been levelled against all the members of the family, therefore, by such bald and omnibus statement as made by the complainant in the application under Section 12 of DV Act. Hence, petitioners have come before this Court with the aforesaid prayer. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/complainant (wife) contended that the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief as complainant has been subjected to cruelty and harassment on the ground of demand of dowry and this petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 6. Vide order dated 09.07.2024 in CRMP No.678/2024, the Division Bench of this Court has passed the following order: 10. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the FIR bearing Crime No. 59/2024 registered at Police Station, Tarbahar, District Bilaspur for the offences under Section 498-A and 34 of the IPC on 6 10.02.2024, so far it relates to the petitioners No. 1 to 3, namely Abdul rajjak Asrafi, Smt. Akila Begum and Ms. Takbiyat Sheikh, respectively, are quashed. However, the FIR, so far it relates to the petitioner No.4-Mohd. Aarif Asrafi, is concerned, the same shall continue. 11. Resultantly, this petition is partly allowed.” 7. Considering facts of the case, nature of allegation, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the submission that the allegation in application filed by complainant under under Section 12 of DV Act are of same allegation as lodged by complainant against the petitioners in FIR bearing crime No.59/2024 for commission of offence under Section 498A and 34 of IPC and FIR bearing Crime No.59/2024 so far it relates to the petitioners No.1 to 3 has been quashed by Division Bench of this Court in CRMP No.678/2024 on 09.07.2024, however, the FIR so far it relates to the petitioner No.4-Mohd. Aarif Asrafi was directed to continue, further considering that there is no any specific date or time mentioned in the first information report as to on which date and at which time the respondent was treated with cruelty and only a bald and general allegation has been levelled against in-laws (petitioner Nos.1 to 3) and by such bald and omnibus statement as made by the complainant in the application under Section 12 of DV Act, hence, this Court is inclined to quash the criminal proceeding under Section 12 of DV Act pending against in-laws (petitioner Nos.1 to 3) only. 7 8. Accordingly, criminal proceeding under Section 12 of DV Act pending against in-laws (petitioner Nos.1 to 3) before the Judicial Magistrate first Class, Bilaspur (GG) in MJC case No.370/2025 is hereby quashed, however, proceeding against the petitioner No.4-Mohammad Aarif (husband of respondent-complainant) shall continue. Concerned Court shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by this order. 9. In the result, present petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s). Sd/ Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.