1 2025:CGHC:59971-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3502 of 2025 1 - Siyaram S/o Dilharan Lodhi Aged About 31 Years R/o Suradabri, Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai C.G. 2 - Dilharan S/o Sonsai Lodhi Aged About 59 Years R/o Suradabri, Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai C.G. 3 - Smt. Amrika Bai W/o Dilharan Lodhi Aged About 57 Years R/o Suradabri, Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai C.G. 2 - Smt. Bhuneshwari Lodhi W/o Siyaram Lodhi Aged About 26 Years C/o Rajkumar Verma At Present R/o Village - Aamgaon, Tahsil And Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai C.G. Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.12.11 19:07:19 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10/12/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.03/2025, application for exemption from depositing the amount of Rs.50,000/-. 2. The matter was earlier referred to the mediation centre at the request of the petitioner vide order dated 20/11/2025, with a direction to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- which was to be paid to respondent No.2/ wife, however, the petitioner No.1/ husband has failed to do so and the counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner could not deposit the said amount due to some financial hardship and as such he may be exempted from depositing the said amount. 3. Upon due consideration, the application I.A. No.2 is rejected. Since the case is at the stage of charge framing before the learned trial Court, we proceed to hear the matter finally. 4. The instant CRMP has been filed by the petitioners with the following relief:- “I. Allow this petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. filed by the petitioners. II. Quash the impugned FIR dated 10.08.2024 bearing 3 Crime No. 231/2024 registered at Police Station, Chhuikhadan, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) for the offence U/s 498-A, 34 of IPC against the petitioners. III. Quash the impugned Final Report No. 206/2024 dated 04.10.2024 submitted by Police Station, Chhuikhadan before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhuikhadan for the offence U/s 498-A, 323, 34 of IPC against the petitioners. IV. Quash the impugned cognizance order dated 31.12.2024 as well as the entire criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 1798/2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhuikhadan for the offence U/s 498-A, 323, 34 of IPC against the petitioners. V. Grant any other relief, which may be deemed fit in given facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of petitioners.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 24.05.2021, and thereafter the parties resided together at various places including Mumbai, Durg and Village Suradabri. The petitioners allege that respondent No.2 repeatedly quarreled with petitioner No.1, avoided household responsibilities, denied matrimonial relations, and frequently misbehaved with petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who are the in-laws of respondent No.2, giving threats of false criminal implication. It is further alleged that respondent No.2 left the matrimonial home on 11.04.2024 and 4 lodged a complaint leading to registration of FIR in Crime No. 231/2024 for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 IPC, resulting in filing of charge-sheet and commencement of Criminal Case No. 1798/2024 before the JMFC, Chhuikhadan. Earlier petitioners No.2 and 3 had withdrawn their previous Cr.M.P. with liberty to file afresh. Hence, the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated, as petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioners No.2 and 3 are aged and infirm in-laws who have never subjected respondent No.2 to any cruelty. It is urged that the FIR contains only vague and omnibus allegations without attributing any specific overt act to the petitioners, and even if the prosecution version is taken at its face value, no ingredients of Sections 498-A/323/34 IPC are satisfied. It is further submitted that there is no material to show any demand of dowry and that respondent No.2 had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without reasonable cause. Learned counsel contends that the criminal case is based on exaggerated and inconsistent allegations and that permitting such proceedings to continue would amount to misuse of the criminal justice process. Learned counsel also submits that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed. 5 7. Per Contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners for quashment of the FIR and other consequential proceedings and submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioners, even if considered prima facie, disclose sufficient ingredients of the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 IPC and, therefore, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 9. Upon careful consideration of the documents on record and the nature of the allegations, it is observed that the petitioners have raised contentions regarding vague and omnibus allegations, absence of specific instances of cruelty, and no demand of dowry. However, the complaint of the respondent No.2 prima facie discloses allegations which, if proved, could constitute offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 IPC. Even otherwise, during the course of hearing, it is informed to this Court that the case is at the stage of framing of charges before the trial Court and as such, at this stage, it is not proper for this Court to quash the FIR, order taking cognizance and the final report against the petitioners as well as the criminal proceeding pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhuikhadan in Criminal Case No. 1798/2024. 6 10. In view of the forgoing, we are not inclined to interfere in the present matter, leaving it open to the petitioners to take every objection before the trial Court concerned at appropriate stage. 11. Accordingly, the instant CRMP is rejected at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/ (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar