1 2025:CGHC:31230-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 320 of 2023 1- Anshul Sharma S/o Anand Prakash Sharma Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. 876, Near Bakshi Dental Clinic, Sundernagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2- Katyayani Sharma W/o Anand Prakash Sharma Aged About 57 Years R/o House No. 876, Near Bakshi Dental Clinic Sundernagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1- State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2- Superintendent Of Police Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3- Station House Officer Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ananya Pandey Sharma W/o Anshul Sharma Aged About 30 Years R/o C- 5/12, Sannidhya Dhebar City, Bhatagaon Raipur District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Hamida Siddique, Advocate. For Respondent(s) / State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate. 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08/07/2025 1 Heard Ms. Hamida Siddique, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3 as well as Mr. Kshitij Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2 By this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) the petitioner(s) seek quashing of FIR bearing Crime No. 185/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sctions 489A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Mahila Thana, Raipur, District Raipur and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 3 The facts, as projected by the petitioners, is that the complainant/ respondent No. 4, lodged a report at Police Station, Mahila Thana, Raipur on 05.11.2022 bearing Crime No. 0185/2022 alleging that she was married to the petitioner No. 1 on 26.06.2021 as per the social customs. Soon after their marriage, the petitioner No. 1-husband and her mother-in-law i.e. the petitioner No. 2 and Anand Prakash Sharma, father of the petitioner No. 1 on the ground of demand of dowry. She has also alleged that the sister of the petitioner No. 1 and sister in law (Chacheri Bhabhi) namely Anubha also causes trouble between the husband and wife. She alleged that she was driven away from her matrimonial house and as such, her married life has been ruined. She alleged that the she was treated with mental and physical cruelty in her matrimonial house 3 and that her husband had stated that he cannot give any satisfaction to her as he was having some medical issues and that they would not have any children in future. 4 Ms. Hamida Siddique, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact because of the FIR lodged by the respondent No. 4, the life of the petitioners have been ruined. The petitioner No. 1 has been demeaned in the society as the allegation levelled against him is that he is physically incapable of performing sexual intercourse. It is in fact the respondent No. 4 who is not willing to perform her obligations in her matrimonial house and wants to harass the petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 was being taunted by the respondent No. 4 because of his physical condition which was not within his control and as such, the petitioners have suffered both emotional and psychological humiliation. The petitioner No. 1 had been visiting various doctors for his treatment but still, the respondent No. 4 has alleged the petitioners of demanding dowry. No offence of demand of dowry is made out against the petitioners. 5 On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3 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 matter is under investigation. 6 Mr. Kshitij Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4/ complainant/wife submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and they have treated the respondent No. 4 with cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry and as such, this petition deserves to be dismissed at this stage as the investigation has not yet been concluded. The petitioner No. 1 concealed his physical condition that he was not 4 capable of performing sexual intercourse and as such has ruined the entire life of the respondent No. 4. 7 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8 From perusal of the documents appended with the petition, it transpires that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 11.06.2025, the parties appeared for mediation before the High Court Mediation Centre, but the mediation proceedings have failed. 9 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. 10 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. 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 5 11 In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 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 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 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 6 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.....” 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 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 7 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 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 8 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 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.” 9 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/respondent No. 2 has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners 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. However, there is an allegation against the petitioner No. 1 that he had concealed his physical condition of being incapable of performing sexual intercourse which could not have been known by her mother petitioner No. 2, and as such, prima facie, a case is made out against the petitioner No. 1-husband as the said act is of such which would be cause grave mental trauma to the respondent No. 4 . 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, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under489A and 34 of the IPC against the petitioner No. 2-Katyayani Sharma. 16 As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, the FIR bearing Crime No. 185/2022 registered under Section 498-A, 34 of the IPC at Police Station, Mahila Thana, Raipur, District Raipur, so far it relates to petitioner No. 2-Katyayani Sharma and the consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed. However, the investigation against the husband-petitioner No. 1-Anshul Sharma, shall continue. The 10 Investigating Officer concerned shall investigate the matter against the petitioner No. 1 only, strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above. 17 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: 2025.07.09 19:45:20 +0530