1 2025:CGHC:58616 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 2838 of 2025 1 - Sushil Kumar Dewangan S/o Dinesh Dewangan Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Camp 2, Infront Of Janta School, Bhilai Power House, District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Dinesh Dewangan S/o Late Amulal Dewangan Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Camp 2, Infront Of Janta School, Bhilai Power House, District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Humendra Dewangan S/o Dinesh Dewangan Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Camp 2, Infront Of Janta School, Bhilai Power House, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Rama Dewangan W/o Dinesh Dewangan Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Camp 2, Infront Of Janta School, Bhilai Power House, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Smt. Bhuvaneshwari Dewangan W/o Sushil Kumar Dewangan Aged About 33 Years R/o Dewangan Mohalla, Hatribazar Champa, Thana Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ---- Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ___________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate ___________________________________________________________ 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 03/12/2025 1. By this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s): “It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this instant petition and quash the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No.434/2025, pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) registered against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Section 12 & 23 of Domestic Violence Act, registered on the application filed by the respondent under section 12 read with 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of Domestic Violence Act and 409 of I.P.C. on 12.12.23 and all consequential proceedings, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioner No.1 got married with the respondent on 09.02.2018 as per Hindu customs and rituals. The petitioner No.2 is father, petitioner No.3 is brother and petitioner No.4 is mother of petitioner No.1. On 26.03.2021, respondent has filed the FIR against the petitioners that they were demanding dowry and also torturing mentally to her. Due to aforesaid fact, the dispute started at Bhilai and the respondent has left home and went to her parental house and now she is working as Staff Nurse at Champa. 3. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, matter was reported and charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners. By order dated 3 26.08.2021 passed in Criminal Case No.434/2021, the JMFC Champa, District Janjgir Chmapa, took cognizance against the petitioners fro commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A & 34 of IPC. 4. After lodging of FIR, the respondent has filed complaint under Section 12 r/w 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the Domestic Violence Act and Section 409 of IPC before the JMFC, Champa, District Janjgir Champa. Hence, this petition. 5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the registration of complaint case is against the settled principles of law and not sustainable as it is arbitrary, illegal. The learned J.M.F.C. failed to appreciate the fact that the application filed by the respondent is just to harass the petitioners. The respondent has lodged FIR U/S 498-A read with section 34 of IPC against the petitioners and after lodging the FIR petitioners filed CR.M.P. before this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court allowed the application filed by the respondent no.2 to 4 and rejected the application of petitioner no.1 on 03.12.24 and 03.04.25. He further argued that entire criminal proceeding is manifestly initiated by the respondents without there being any material found against the petitioner, just in order to harass the petitioners. Perusing the entire complaint, it does not disclose the commission of any 4 offence and make out any case against the petitioners. The complainant has tried to implicate the petitioners in false and frivolous allegations as nothing specific has been alleged against the petitioners in the complaint. The entire complaint has been lodged by the complainant with the ulterior motive of grabbing money from the petitioners. He further argued that during pendency of Cr.M.P. No.914/2025 before this Hon'ble Court as per direction of this Court the petitioner no.1 has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 17.03.25 before mediation center and same has been received by the respondent. The respondent has filed application U/S 125 of Cr.P.C. before Family Court Janjgir against petitioner no.1 and in that case petitioner no.1 has given interim maintenance of Rs.4,000-/. 6. He further argued that the petitioner no.1 has filed divorce petition against the respondent before Learned Family Court Janjgir District Janjgir Champa and the Learned Family Court granted divorce in favour of petitioner no. 1 therefore the respondent has filed appeal before this Court which was registered in F.A. (Mat.) No.301/2024 and matter was listed on 10.09.24. which is pending. It is therefore prayed that, this Court may kindly be pleased to allow this instant petition and quash the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No.434/2025, pending before Judicial Magistrate 5 First Class, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) registered against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Section 12 & 23 of Domestic Violence Act, registered on the application filed by the respondent under section 12 read with 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of Domestic Violence Act and 409 of I.P.C. on 12.12.23 and all consequential proceedings, in the interest of justice. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent has submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as the Respondent has been subjected to cruelty and harassment on the ground of demand of dowry and this petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 9. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (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 6 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 & Ors., reported in (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. 11. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another1, 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 others2 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 1 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 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 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, 8 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 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 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 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 9 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 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 10 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. 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 11 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 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 Apex Court quashed the FIR, the charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court. 14. In the complaint so made, the complainant has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners No.2, 3 & 4 without being full particulars about date and place that Petitioners No.2, 3 & 4 treated her with cruelty for demand of dowry. There is no specific allegation regarding the petitioners No.2, 3 & 4 except common and general allegations against Petitioners No.2, 3 & 4 12 that they have demanded dowry and committed cruelty against the respondent. So far as Petitioner No.1 is concerned, there is specific allegation against him regarding harassment for demand of dowry. 15. 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 petitioners No.2, 3 & 4, I am of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC is made out for prosecuting petitioners No.2, 3 & 4 for the above-stated offences. 16. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No.434/2025, pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) registered against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Sections 12 & 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, registered on the application filed by the respondent under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of Domestic Violence Act and Section 409 of I.P.C., is hereby quashed to the extent of Petitioner No.2 – Dinesh Dewangan, Petitioner No.3 – Humendra Dewangan and Petitioner No.4 – Smt. Rama 13 Dewangan. Prosecution against her husband Petitioner No. 1- Sushil Kumar Dewangan shall continue. Concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending against Petitioner No.1-Sushil Kumar Dewangan strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of these observations made herein above. 17. The instant petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No cost(s). Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant