1 2025:CGHC:59111-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3350 of 2025 1 - Nikahat Parveen W/o Mo. Ajaj Aged About 38 Years R/o Ali Kirana Store, Manjha Toli, Shankh Mode, P.S. Raidih, District Gumla (Jharkhand) 2 - Abdul Majeed S/o Late Noor Mohammad Aged About 69 Years R/o Ali Kirana Store, Manjha Toli, Shankh Mode, P.S. Raidih, District Gumla (Jharkhand) 3 - Kamrun Nisha W/o Abdul Majeed Aged About 62 Years R/o Ali Kirana Store, Manjha Toli, Shankh Mode, P.S. Raidih, District Gumla (Jharkhand) 4 - Astarun Nisha W/o Firoj Ansari Aged About 42 Years Present Address R/o Naim Nagar Old Court, Durgapur, District Wardhman (West Bengal) 5 - Faiyaj S/o Abdul Majeed Aged About 38 Years R/o Ali Kirana Store, Manjha Toli, Shankh Mode, P.S. Raidih, District Gumla (Jharkhand) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Ist Secretary, Department Of Home And Police Affairs Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. And Post Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. And Post Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Superindendent Of Police Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.12.08 10:55:18 +0530 2 4 - Police Station Mahila Thana Through Officer Incharge Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ishrat Parveen W/o Mo. Faiyaj Aged About 28 Years R/o Through Father Mujiburrahman Ward No. 28, Gaji Nagar Birgaon, P.S. Urla Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer and Mr. Naveen Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Badruddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4/State and Mr. Naveen Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 5. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “(A) It is, therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the F.I.R no 01/2022, Charge Sheet issued under section 498-A, 506, 406,34 of the IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Act and criminal proceeding 1818/22 pending before the JMFC Raipur Dist Raipur (C.G.) (B) That, the honble high court, being pleased, to quash charge dated 17/05/22 and cognizance order 3 dated 4/3/22 passed by JMFC Raipur Dist Raipur(C.G.) in the interest of justice.” 3. Prosecution story in brief is that the marriage between the petitioner No.5 Faiyaj and the respondent No.5 was solemnized on 28.03.2018 at Birgaon, Raipur according to Muslim customs, after which the respondent No.5 proceeded to her matrimonial home in Jharkhand. It has been alleged that on the very next day of the marriage, upon inspecting the gifts brought by the parents and relatives of the respondent No.5, her mother-in-law, jethani and nanad commented adversely on the quality of the gift articles, which according to the complainant caused her humiliation. The FIR further alleges that after five days, when the family members of the respondent No.5 visited the matrimonial home to take her for the customary Naroj ceremony, the in- laws again complained about insufficient and low-quality gift articles, causing mental agony to her mother and brother. It is further alleged that upon returning to the matrimonial home after 3-4 days from her parental house, the in-laws started claiming that she and her family did not accord them proper respect during the visit, due to which the respondent No.5 was subjected to mental harassment and her personal belongings were taken away by the mother-in-law, jethani and nanad, who also allegedly forbade her from entering the kitchen or cooking food. It is alleged that whenever she performed household work, she was beaten by the said relatives, leading to ill-health. The complainant has also stated that the petitioners and her husband demanded 50 tola gold, a car and other expensive articles from her parents, and their 4 behaviour continued to worsen, with the harassment increasing day by day. 4. According to the prosecution, on 05.09.2018 the respondent No.5 came to Raipur for medical treatment along with her father, but after recovery no one from her in-laws’ family came to take her back, and it was stated to her that the person who brought her should also drop her back, which caused further humiliation. It is alleged that even during her pregnancy, the petitioners compelled her to perform heavy household work and taunted her that her child would not survive, while also abusing her family as “beggars”. On 03.02.2019, she again came to her parental home due to pregnancy-related medical issues, remained hospitalized for two months and gave birth to a female child, whereupon the in-laws allegedly demanded Rs.10 lakhs to accept the child. It is further alleged that her parents, with great difficulty, arranged Rs.3 lakhs and paid it to petitioner No.5 Faiyaj, although he had earlier demanded Rs.5 lakhs, and upon assurance he returned to Jharkhand. The prosecution further states that thereafter the husband and the petitioners again visited Raipur demanding the remaining Rs.7 lakhs, and when the father of the respondent No.5 expressed his inability, they created a dispute, leading to the payment of Rs.2 lakhs more by borrowing from relatives. It is alleged that despite repeated persuasion, the behaviour of the husband and in-laws did not improve, and demands for car and money continued unabated, causing deterioration in her health and ultimately compelling her to return to Raipur on 26.01.2020. After the Covid-19 pandemic, a social meeting was said to 5 have been organized by the parents of the respondent No.5, in which members from both families participated, and upon assurances given in the meeting, the respondent No.5 was taken back to Jharkhand, however, according to the complaint, the cruelty persisted and she was again subjected to beating and harassment for dowry. Ultimately, on 04.12.2020, the father-in-law and husband allegedly left the respondent No.5 and her minor daughter at Raipur, abandoning them without care or support. 5. On the basis of these allegations, the present criminal case bearing No. 1818/2022 was registered before the Court of JMFC, Raipur for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506, 406, 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, culminating in the filing of the charge-sheet and the order of cognizance dated 04.03.2022, which are now sought to be quashed in this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire prosecution story is false, concocted, and without any substance. The allegations have been leveled only to harass the petitioners, and on account of these proceedings, the petitioners and their family members are facing undue hardship and irreparable loss to their reputation. Further, even assuming the prosecution case on its face value, no offence under Section 498-A IPC is made out. It is argued that petitioner No.1, who is the jethani of the respondent No.5, has been residing separately in a different household and has no concern with the day-to- day affairs of the complainant’s matrimonial life, yet she has been unnecessarily roped in merely because of her relationship. Learned 6 counsel would further submit that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are aged persons, suffering from multiple serious medical ailments including kidney complications, orthopaedic problems, lung disorders, cardiac issues, diabetes and high blood pressure, and both of them reside with their elder son, therefore, the allegations of assault, cruelty or active involvement in dowry demands against such infirm and dependent persons are inherently improbable, exaggerated and concocted. The petitioner No.4 is stated to be residing permanently in the State of West Bengal and had no physical proximity or interaction with the respondent No.5 during the period of the alleged incidents, yet even she has been implicated on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations, clearly demonstrating that the FIR has been instituted with a malicious intent and not on the basis of actual events. Learned counsel submits that the allegations of dowry demand, harassment and assault are general in nature, lacking any particulars of date, place or specific overt act, and are merely stereotypical assertions often made to drag the entire family into criminal proceedings. In support of these submissions, reliance is placed on the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599, and Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, wherein it has been held that vague, omnibus and sweeping allegations without specific instances cannot be the basis for prosecuting the relatives of the husband, and that the criminal law should not be allowed to become a weapon for wreaking vengeance. It is also submitted that there is an unexplained 7 and substantial delay in lodging the FIR, which casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the allegations and reflects an afterthought intended to harass the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that despite attempts made for reconciliation through mediation as directed by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2025, the process failed. The petitioners, in compliance with the directions of this Court, have already paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No. 5 during the course of mediation proceedings. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly states that an act to constitute offence, the allegation should demonstrate the intention and act of the present petitioners towards the complainant, as the petitioners have never done any such act which falls under definition of Section 498A/34 of the IPC and even if entire case of the prosecution would be taken in its own face value than also the ingredients of Section 498A/34 of the IPC would not made out against the petitioners. He further states that no specific act of the petitioners have been attributed in the FIR and the petitioners have been implicated in crime in question only on the basis of vague, general and omnibus type statement of the complainant/wife with intent to harass the petitioners, therefore, allowing the continuation of criminal case against them would amount to abuse of process of law and thus, the impugned FIR, charge-sheet as well as criminal proceedings pending before the concerned trial Court deserves to be quashed. He also submits that petitioners No.1 to 4 have also been roped in the crime by alleging absolute vague allegation, which is 8 no manner constitutes any offence under Section 498A/34 of the IPC. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that considering the material available on record, it cannot be held that no prima facie case against the petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 406, 34 of the IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act is made out. He would further submit that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is extremely limited as FIR cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient material available on record. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5/complainant submits that the present petition is wholly baseless and intended only to delay the lawful criminal proceedings, as the FIR and charge-sheet clearly disclose specific allegations of continuous cruelty, dowry demand and physical and mental harassment committed by the husband and his family members, including the present petitioners. It is urged that the pleas of separate residence, old age or medical illness are irrelevant at this stage, since the complainant has consistently narrated their active involvement in demanding money, taunting her over gifts, forcing her to perform heavy work during pregnancy, and ultimately abandoning her. It is argued that the so-called delay in filing the FIR is natural in matrimonial matters and does not weaken the prosecution. Learned counsel submits that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are inapplicable because the present case contains clear and specific allegations, and that the limited jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS cannot be invoked to quash a prosecution involving serious 9 allegations of dowry cruelty. Accordingly, the petition deserves dismissal. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 12. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1, the Honb’ble 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 IPC would not be justified as cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process. 13. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others2 the Hon’ble 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. 14. 14. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 10 Another3, 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 others4 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 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 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 11 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, 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..…” 15. The Hon’ble 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. 16. Very recently, the Hon’ble 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 12 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 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 13 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 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 14 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 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.” 15 Observing the aforesaid, the Hon’ble Apex Court quashed the FIR, the charge-sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court. 17. On careful consideration of the submissions and the materials placed on record, this Court is of the firm view that the allegations levelled against the present petitioners are vague, omnibus and lacking in specific details as to the nature, date or place of any individual act attributed to them. The allegations reveal a matrimonial discord essentially between the complainant and her husband, whereas the other family members appear to have been implicated merely by virtue of their relationship, without any substantive material indicating their active involvement. Petitioner No.1 is admittedly residing separately, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are elderly and suffering from multiple serious medical conditions, and petitioner No.4 resides permanently in West Bengal. These undisputed factual circumstances, coupled with the absence of any specific overt act in the statements collected during investigation, give rise to a strong inference that the allegations against them are exaggerated and not supported by concrete evidence. Even if taken at its face value, does not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 498-A IPC against the petitioners. 18. This Court is also conscious of the legal position that while genuine cases of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC must be prosecuted with seriousness, the criminal law cannot be permitted to be used as a tool to rope in the entire family without specific allegations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in abovecited judgments has cautioned that general and 16 sweeping allegations, lacking particulars, cannot justify the criminal prosecution of relatives living separately or having no direct connection with the matrimonial relationship. A careful reading of the prosecution material reveals that the allegations against the petitioners fall squarely within this category. No independent witness or contemporaneous material supports the claim of persistent dowry demands or cruelty by these petitioners. The core ingredients required to constitute offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC or Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not made out from the record, and the continuation of the proceedings would amount to subjecting the petitioners to unnecessary harassment without legal justification. 19. The allegations made against petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are vague, sweeping, and omnibus in nature. No specific role or act has been attributed to them which may constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. The settled legal position is that general allegations, without supporting particulars, cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution. 20. Furthermore, this Court cannot ignore the fact that in compliance with the order of this Court dated 07.11.2025, the parties participated in mediation proceedings in an effort to amicably resolve their dispute, however, the mediation failed despite the bona fide conduct of the petitioners, who even paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.5 during the process. The failure of mediation underscores the irreconcilable nature of the marital conflict, but it does not supply any material to sustain criminal charges where none exist in law. 17 21. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, including the nature of allegations, the absence of supporting evidence, the separate residence and medical conditions of the petitioners, and the settled legal principles governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, this Court is satisfied that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would result in abuse of the process of law and serve no useful purpose. 22. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1818/2022 arising out of FIR No. 01/2022, charge- sheet issued under Section 498-A, 506, 406, 34 of the IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act and charges framed on 17.05.2022 along with the order taking cognizance dated 04.03.2022 against the petitioners, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District- Raipur are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet