1 2025:CGHC:56349 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 67 of 2022 Smt. Preyasha @ Nidhi Jain, W/o Manish Jain, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Naya Sharafa Bazar, Ward No. 6, Balaghat, Police Station Balaghat, Tahsil And District Balaghat (M.P.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Manish Jain, S/o Shri Madan Chand Jain, Aged About 41 Years, 3 - Smt. Chetna Jain, W/o Late Manoj Jain, Aged About 39 Years, Both are R/o Kailash Nagar, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Manjula, W/o Rajesh Kumar Sancheti, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Main Road Bus Stand, Katangi, District Balaghat (M.P.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Rajat Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Shri Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No.2 to 3 : Shri Satyendra Shrivas, Advocate. Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 19/11/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.11.20 17:31:55 +0530 2 questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 20/02/2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.91/2017, whereby, the respondents No.2 to 4 have been discharged from the charges framed under Section 498-A of IPC by the learned trial Court on 14/11/2017 in Criminal Case No.2604/2014. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that on 12/05/2014, a written report was lodged by the complainant-Smt. Preyasha @ Nidhi Jain against her husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law, alleging inter alia, that after the solemnization of her marriage with the respondent No.2-Manish Jain on 25/01/1998, she was initially kept in a cordial manner for the period of 6-7 months, but, thereafter, the behaviour of the respondents has been changed and they started harassing and maltreating her on account of demand of Rs.10 Lacs for carrying the business. It was alleged further that her husband used to raise a doubt about her character and her in-laws taunted her by saying ‘Banjh’ and it was alleged further in her alleged report that if she failed to fulfill their demand, she would be driven out from the house. Further of her allegation, as revealed from her report, would show that when she was pregnant, it was aborted, owing to the assault made by them and it was alleged further that on 15/07/2013, her brother-in-law, namely, Manoj Jain had demanded a sum of Rs.25 Lacs from her father for carrying his business and, was driven out from the house on 04/11/2013 after assaulting her badly. 3. After considering the aforesaid allegations leveled by the 3 complainant, the trial Court vide its order dated 14/11/2017 has framed the charge against them under Section 498-A of IPC and being aggrieved, a revision was preferred by them, where, the learned Revisional Court vide its order impugned dated 20/02/2018 has reversed the same, while discharging them from the alleged offence and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the complainant. 4. Although, it was alleged by the complainant in her alleged report, lodged on 12/05/2014, that she was harassed and maltreated by them on account of demand of dowry, but from perusal of the record, it appears that after her marriage she resided with her husband and in-laws up to 04/11/2013 and during such a long period of 15 years, no allegations as such was, ever, raised by her. That apart, certain messages were sent by her to her husband on 01/01/2014 and 12/03/2014 and, a bare perusal of those messages would reveal the fact that she is, in fact, adamant to live separately from her in-laws and wanted to live only with her husband and, in her alleged messages also, no allegations as such was leveled by her. It is to be seen further that few days before lodging the alleged report, a petition was filed by her before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Balaghat (M.P.), seeking dissolution of marriage from her husband on 05/05/2014 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty and, a decree of divorce was drawn in her favour by the said Family Court vide its order dated 31/01/2018 in Civil Suit No.226-A/2014 and, a bare perusal of the said order, particularly paragraphs 63 and 64, would show, upon taking note of 4 her admission that till the date of her residing with the respondents, they have neither harassed or maltreated her on account of demand of dowry and, rather has visited along with her husband to abroad. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Revisional Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in discharging them from the commission of the alleged crime, while setting aside the charge framed by the concerned trial Court on 14/11/2017, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 6. The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Kamde