1 CRMP No.657 of 2024 2025:CGHC:53806-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 657 of 2024 1 - Manish Verma S/o Late Shri Balkaran Verma Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 165, Sector-1, Professor Colony, Thana Purani Basti, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Shakuntala Verma W/o Late Shri Balkaran Verma Aged About 56 Years R/o House No. 165, Sector-1, Professor Colony, Thana Purani Basti, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Aman Verma S/o Late Shri Balkaran Verma Aged About 28 Years R/o House No. 165, Sector-1, Professor Colony, Thana Purani Basti, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Manisha Verma W/o Piyush Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Smriti Nagar Police Station Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.11.07 11:14:53 +0530 2 CRMP No.657 of 2024 2 - Smt. Varsha Verma W/o Manish Verma Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Jalso Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioners : Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Yash Bothra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 04/11/2025 1. Heard Mr. Shivam Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Saumya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/ State as well as Mr. Yash Bothra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/ Complainant. 2. It is noteworthy to mention here that as per mediation report dated 13/08/2025, mediation has failed between the parties. 3. The present CRMP has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer :- “1. It is respectfully prayed that the entire records and case diary of the FIR No. 79/2023, u/s 498(A), 34 of the IPC of Police Station Mahila Thana, District Raipur (C.G.), about the petitioners may be kindly called from the Respondent No. 1, the State of 3 CRMP No.657 of 2024 Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Mahila Thana District Raipur (C.G.). 2. It is respectfully prayed that the entire proceedings of Crime No. 79/2023 of the Police Station Mahila Thana Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), and the initiation of criminal proceedings by the registration of FIR No. 79/2023, u/s 498(A), 34 of the IPC and final report 75/2023 u/s 498(A), 34, 406 IPC, Section 4 & 5 Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratarna Adhiniyam & Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act which is pending before the Court of JMFC Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) may kindly be quashed, because it is bad, illegal, and untenable in the eyes of law, and the petitioners may clear themselves of the allegations and charges. 3. It is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass such an order as it deems fit and may also be granted in favor of the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife, while petitioners No.2 to 4 are in-laws of respondent No.2/ complainant. The respondent No.2 lodged an FIR bearing No.79/2023 dated 19.06.2023 alleging that the petitioners harassed her physically and mentally for bringing less dowry at the time of marriage and later identified her as tonhi (witch), compelling her to reside with her father since 09.12.2021. It is alleged that the petitioners demanded dowry, including a car, both before and after marriage, and also misappropriated her streedhan and cash of Rs.20,000/-. After 4 CRMP No.657 of 2024 failed counseling efforts, petitioner No.1 filed for divorce on 07.11.2022, whereafter the present FIR was registered, which the petitioners allegeed to be a retaliatory act. Upon investigation, additional charges under Sections 406 IPC, 4 & 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Act, 2005, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, were added without any supporting evidence. It is further stated that the father of petitioner No.1, who was also made an accused, passed away during the pendency of proceedings, and the investigation was carried out in a mechanical manner without proper verification of the allegations. According to the petitioners, the prosecution based on such omnibus and general allegations amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the petitioners pray for quashing of the pending criminal proceedings in the interest of justice and to prevent misuse of process of law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made by the complainant/respondent No.2 are false, vague, and omnibus in nature, lodged only as a counterblast to the divorce proceedings initiated by petitioner No.1 on 07.11.2022. It is contended that the FIR dated 19.06.2023 and the subsequent final report dated 23.08.2023 have been filed in a mechanical manner without any supporting oral or documentary evidence. Learned counsel further submits that the dispute between the parties is purely matrimonial in nature, which has been 5 CRMP No.657 of 2024 unnecessarily given a criminal color to harass the petitioners. It is also urged that petitioner No.4, being a married sister-in-law residing separately at Bhilai, has been falsely implicated without any role in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the respondent authority has acted in haste without proper verification of facts or independent corroboration of the allegations, and that no ingredients of the offences under Sections 498A, 406 IPC or the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Act or Dowry Prohibition Act are made out. Hence, it is submitted that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed. The charges framed by the learned trial Court suffer from legal infirmity, as they are based on vague, omnibus, and baseless allegations devoid of any concrete material. In light of these circumstances, criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners would amount to grave miscarriage of justice, and as such, the same deserves to be quashed to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel and counsel for respondent No. 2 opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and submits that the complaint contains specific allegations supported by the investigation and charge sheet. They contended that the prosecution is neither vague nor baseless. Hence, the present petition seeking quashment of the criminal 6 CRMP No.657 of 2024 proceedings may be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 8. Upon consideration of the facts and material placed on record, it is evident that the dispute between the parties arises out of matrimonial dispute, which has subsequently been given a criminal color. The allegations levelled by respondent No.2 are largely general, omnibus, and lack specific instances supported by credible evidence. The sequence of events further indicates that the FIR was registered only after petitioner No.1 initiated divorce proceedings, suggesting that the same was filed with mala fide intent to pressurize the petitioners. The investigation also appears to have been conducted in a mechanical manner without independent verification of the allegations. 9. 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 the petitioners treated her with cruelty for not bringing money towards dowry. There is no specific allegation regarding the petitioners except common and general allegations that they have demanded cash amount and used criminal force upon her. 10. The investigation report dated 23.08.2023 does not disclose any concrete material to prima facie constitute offences under Sections 498A, 406 IPC, or under the provisions of the 7 CRMP No.657 of 2024 Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Act, 2005, and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Therefore, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners under such circumstances, would not only result in grave miscarriage of justice but also cause unnecessary hardship and prejudice to the petitioners. 11. Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, based solely on such bald and uncorroborated allegations, would amount to abuse of the process of law and result in unnecessary harassment. Thus, this Court finds it appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the present petitioners to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice. 12. The law has consistently cautioned against the indiscriminate and indisposed prosecution of relatives in matrimonial disputes, especially under Section 498-A IPC, when there is an absence of specific allegations or direct involvement. 13. In view of the above and considering the submissions made by 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, the FIR No.79/2023, the criminal proceedings arising out of the same and the consequent charge sheet No. 75/2023, dated 23.08.2023 filed against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 498A, 406 IPC, Section 4 & 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Act, 2005, and Section 4 of 8 CRMP No.657 of 2024 the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending before the Court of JMFC Raipur, C.G. are hereby quashed. 14. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (CRMP) is allowed. - Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice $. Bhilwar