1 2025:CGHC:42916-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 431 of 2025 1 - Smt. Savita Singh W/o Shri Upendra Kumar Singh Aged About 66 Years R/o - Dilip Nagar Palace, Dilip Nagar, Kushinagar, (U.P.) Pin- 274402 2 - Upendra Kumar Singh S/o Late. Kunwar Kanhaiya Kumar Singh Aged About 70 Years R/o - Dilip Nagar Palace, Dilip Nagar, Kushinagar, (U.P.) Pin- 274402 3 - Yogendra Kumar Singh S/o Shri Upendra Kumar Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o- Dilip Nagar Palace, Dilip Nagar, Kushinagar, (U.P.) Pin- 274402 4 - Smt. Bhavya Mishra W/o Shri Prabhya Mishra Aged About 34 Years R/o - Rzc-69 And 70, Mcd School Road, Mahaveer Enclave, Near Raj Dairy, New Delhi 5 - Dr. Mahendra Kumar Singh S/o Shri Upendra Kumar Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o- House No. 349, First Floor, Neeti Khand-3, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad - (U.P.) 201014 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O. P.S. - Mahila Thana, Civil Line, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Dr. Shweta Singh W/o Dr. Mahendra Kumar Singh And D/o Dr. Bhagwat Rai, R/o Mig- 40, Padmanabhpur, Ward No. 46, Durg District- Durg, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sourabh Mishra, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25/08/2025 1 Heard Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Sourabh Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2 By this petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS), the petitioners seek for the following relief(s): “I. It is therefore, most humbly prayed that, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set aside, quash the impugned charge sheet No 10/2019 (Annexure-P/1), under the FIR No. 22/2018, filed by the respondent No.1 for which the criminal case No. 1754/2019 is register against the petitioners and the same is pending before the learned JMFC Raipur. II. II. That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be please to imposed the heavy cost upon the respondents on account of the harassment of the petitioners in the false and fabricated case and also awarded the cost of litigation. III. That, the Hon'ble High court may be pleased to issue appropriate order (s), directions, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners, for the end of justice.” 3 Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the marriage between the petitioner No. 5 as well as the respondent No. 2 3 was solemnized on 19.04.2014 at Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. Petitioner No.1 is the mother-in-law, Petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law, petitioner No.3 is the brother-in-law, petitioner No.4 is the sister-in-law of the respondent No. 2/complainant. Petitioner No. 5/husband resides in Ghaziabad, petitioner No. 4 resides in New Delhi and petitioners No. 1 to 3 reside in Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner No.5/husband and respondent No.2/wife both are Dentists and after some time of marriage both were residing at Ghaziabad. After the marriage, the respondent No. 2 wife pressurized the petitioner No. 5/husband to open a hospital at Raipur and to reside separately from his parents. When the pressure was unbearable, the petitioner No. 5 had to file a written complaint at Police Station, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 without any valid reason left the house of the petitioner No. 5 and went to her paternal house at Durg. Despite various requests made the respondent No. 2 did not return and their relationship started deteriorating. The respondent-wife filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights before the Famly Court, Raipur. As the petitioner/husband had already filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights at Ghaziabad, the application filed by the respondent/wife was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent/wife made a complaint before the Mahila Thana, Raipur and after creating political pressure by the aunt and uncle of the respondent/wife, the FIR was registered on 16.04.2018 against the petitioners making false allegations with respect to demand of dowry and treating the respondent/wife with cruelty. The respondent/wife hardly stayed with the petitioners but still the entire family has been roped in the false and malicious case. The petitioners No. 1 to 3 reside in Kushinagar Uttar Pradesh whereas the petitioner NO. 4 reside at New Delhi and the 4 petitioner/husband reside at Ghaziabad. Hence, the allegations levelled by the respondent/wife seems to be improbable and concocted one. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 are old and infirm persons and totally false allegations have been levelled against them and infact it is the respondent No. 2 who is causing mental trauma to the petitioners. 4 Mr. Avinash K. Mishra submits that the petitioners have tried to settle the dispute amicably but due to the adamant attitude of the respondent No. 2, all the efforts made by the petitioners have gone in vain ad as such, the petitioner No. 5 was constrained to file an application seeking decree of divorce before the Family Court, Ghaziabad. In order to take revenge, the respondent/wife has filed a petition under the Domestic Violence Act at Raipur which has been registered as MJC No. 276/2018 and also a petition seeking grant of maintenance. The said conduct of the respondent/wife clearly goes to show that the present FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law in order to satisfy her ego and personal vendetta. 5 On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that that the police has investigated the matter and after prima facie finding offence being made out against the petitioners, FIR was registered and the charge sheet has also been filed and now it is for the trial Court concerned to proceed with the matter. 6 Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/wife submits that this petition is absolutely based on ill-founded facts and grounds which are wholly devoid of merits and substance. The FIR lodged against the present petitioners, the charge-sheet filed post investigation and criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners which 5 are under challenge in this petition are totally justified and the police after investigation have found that prima facie case is made out against petitioners that is why the FIR was registered. When the respondent/wife lodged complaint on 14.11.2017 at Mahila Thana, Raipur, for the purpose of counselling, as the respondent/wife wanted to save the institution of marriage, the petitioners harassed and misbehaved with her whenever they used to attend the counselling proceedings. As such, on 16.04.2018, she was constrained to lodge the complaint before the Superintendent of Police, after which the FIR was registered against the petitioners. The petitioners have not taken any interest in resolving the dispute and on the contrary, a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. 7 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8 The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19.04.2014 at Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. Both the petitioner No. 5/husband and the respondent No. 2/wife are Doctor by profession and come from a quite good financial background. The allegations made in the FIR itself seems to be exaggerated as a huge amount of money and valuables is stated to have been demanded by the petitioners. From perusal of the pleadings of the petitioners, it transpires that the respondent No. 2/wife has resided with the petitioners for a very brief period and the allegations levelled in the FIR appears to be quite improbable. Even the petitioner No. 4 does not reside with other petitioners but still she has been roped in this case. 9 From perusal of the documents appended with the petition, it transpires that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 04.03.2025, the parties appeared for mediation before the High Court Mediation Centre, 6 but the mediation proceedings appears to have failed. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners stating that the conditions demanded by the respondent No. 2/wife was such that it could not be fulfilled as she had demanded Rs. 1.50 Crores as final settlement and also demanded that the petitioner/husband should leave his ancestral place and live separately from his parents and settle in the State of Chhattisgarh. 10 In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1, 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 IPC would not be justified as cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process. 11 In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others2 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. 12 In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another3, it has been held by the Supreme Court relying upon the 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 7 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 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 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 8 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.....” 13 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. 14 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 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 9 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 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 10 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 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. 11 15 In the complaint so made, the complainant/respondent No. 2 has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners No. 1 to 4 without there being full particulars about date and place that all the petitioners including the petitioner No. 1-husband treated her with cruelty for not giving sufficient dowry. There is no specific allegation regarding anyone of the petitioners except common and general allegations that they demanded dowry and harassed her. However, there appears to be some allegation against the petitioner No. 1-Husband and as such, prima facie, a case is made out against the petitioner No. 1-husband only. 16 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. 1 to 4, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under offence Section 498A, 34 Section 406 of the IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is made out. 17 As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, the FIR bearing Crime No. 22/2018 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Raipur, the charge-sheet bearing No. 10/2019, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 34, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as the Criminal Case No. 1754/2019 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, so far it relates to petitioners No. 1 to 4, namely Smt. Savita Singh, Upendra Kumar Singh, Yogendra Kumar Singh and Smt. Bhavya Mishra are quashed. However, the criminal proceedings against the husband/petitioner No. 5-Dr. Mahendra Kumar Singh, shall go on in 12 accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above. 18 As a result, this petition stands partly allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.08.26 11:48:15 +0530