1 2026:CGHC:20109-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1459 of 2024 1 - Vineet Raj Dewangan Son Of Yashwant Kumar Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. 414, Ward No. 1, Nayapara Chowk, Durg, Police Station And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. Accused (On Bail) 2 - Yashwant Kumar Dewangan Son Of Late Gulam Aged About 65 Years R/o House No. 414, Ward No. 1, Nayapara Chowk, Durg, Police Station And District - Durg, Chhattisgar 3 - Sapna Dewangan W/o Yashwant Kumar Aged About 57 Years R/o House No. 414, Ward No. 1, Nayapara Chowk, Durg, Police Station And District - Durg, Chhattisgar 4 - Umesh Raj Dewangan S/o Yashwant Kumar Dewangan Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 414, Ward No. 1, Nayapara Chowk, Durg, Police Station And District - Durg, Chhattisgar 5 - Sunaina Dewangan W/o Om Prakash Aged About 37 Years R/o House No.43, Ward No.4, Satiguri Chowk, Raigarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Kiran Dewangan W/o Dushyant Chakradhari Aged About 36 Years R/o Village - Mohlai, P.S. And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Mahila Thana, Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.05.04 20:47:48 +0530 2 2 - Smt. Neha Dewangan Wife Of Vineet Raj Dewangan Aged About 29 Years Resident Of House No. 6/a, Ward No. 10, Laxmi Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30/04/2026 1. Heard, Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners along with well as Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State and Mr. Sandeep Jha, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of FIR No. 87/2023 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC, along with the final report/charge-sheet arising therefrom and the entire criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 10753/2023 before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. 3 3. During the pendency of the petition, the matter was referred to mediation; however, the mediation proceedings have failed and no amicable settlement could be arrived at between the parties. 4. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking for the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash impugned FIR No. 87/2023 and final report no. 84/2023 followed by FIR no. 87/2023 and if any entire criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 10753/2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 of IPC against the petitioners, in the interest of justice accordingly.” 5. As per the case of the petitioners, the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 07.05.2017 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals, and out of their wedlock, a child was born on 18.02.2023. It is averred that after initial cordial relations, the conduct of respondent No.2 allegedly changed and she started quarreling with the petitioners and eventually left the matrimonial home to reside at her parental house. Despite efforts made by petitioner No.1 to bring her back, she refused to resume cohabitation and thereafter lodged a written complaint before Mahila Thana, Durg, on the basis of which FIR No. 87/2023 was registered against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and upon completion thereof, 4 the police filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court, leading to initiation of Criminal Case No. 10753/2023, which is under challenge in the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR and the consequential charge-sheet are nothing but an abuse of the process of law, as the allegations levelled therein are vague, omnibus and do not disclose any specific instance of cruelty or unlawful demand of dowry against the petitioners. It is contended that the dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 is purely matrimonial in nature arising out of temperamental differences, which has been given a criminal colour by implicating all the family members without any cogent material. It is further submitted that the petitioners have never subjected respondent No.2 to any cruelty and, in fact, efforts were made by petitioner No.1 to bring her back to the matrimonial home, but she refused to cohabit. Learned counsel would argue that even if the entire allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value, no offence under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to misuse of the judicial process. Hence, it is prayed that this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may be pleased to quash the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State submits that the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold, as the impugned FIR has been registered on the basis of a written 5 complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence and, after conducting a fair and proper investigation, the police have filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court. It is contended that the scope of interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is very limited and such inherent powers ought not to be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution at the initial stage. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie constitute an offence under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC and the truthfulness or otherwise of such allegations can only be examined during trial. Hence, no case for quashment of the FIR or the consequential proceedings is made out. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners have subjected the complainant to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry, which compelled her to lodge the complaint before the Mahila Thana, Durg. It is contended that the allegations made in the FIR are specific and supported by the statements recorded during investigation, and the charge-sheet has rightly been filed against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners are trying to evade the due process of law by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, whereas the disputed questions of fact involved in the matter can only be adjudicated upon appreciation of evidence before the Trial Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 9. In support of his submission, he would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 1 , Preeti Gupta and another v. State of 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 6 Jharkhand and another 2 , Swapnil v. State of Madhya Pradesh 3 , Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another4 (Para-24), Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 5 , Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others 6 and Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh 7 . 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 11. At the outset, it would be appropriate to consider the scope of interference in charge-sheet filed by the police against accused in extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS. 12. In the matter of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the accused can approach the High Court either under Section 482 of the CrPC or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others9 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the 2 (2010) 7 SCC 667 3 (2014) 13 SCC 567 4 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 5 (2018) 10 SCC 472 6 (2022) 6 SCC 599 7 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083 8 (1998) 5 SCC 749 9 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: - "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 8 (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which criminal proceeding is a instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a 9 specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 14. The principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) has been followed recently by the Supreme Court in the matters of Google India Private Limited v. Visaka Industries 10 , Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 11 and Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar. v. State of Maharashtra and others 12 ". The Supreme Court in Google India Private Limited (supra), explained the scope of dictum of Bhajan Lal's case (supra) that the power of quashing a 10 (2020) 4 SCC 162 11 (2020) 13 SCC 435 12 (2019) 18 SCC 191 10 criminal proceeding be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and "that too in the rarest of rare cases" as indicated in paragraph 103 therein of the report. 15. Having noticed the scope of interference by this Court in a petition relating to quashment of FIR/charge-sheet, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that in the impugned charge-sheet, the present petitioners have been arraigned as accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC on the basis of the allegations made by respondent No.2, and the entire criminal proceedings have been set in motion against them arising out of matrimonial discord between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. 16. Chapter XXA of the IPC deals with offence of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband. Section 498A of the IPC defines the offence of cruelty as under:- "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or 11 (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 17. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to establish offence under Section 498A of the IPC, the prosecution must establish, (i) That, woman must be married: (ii) She has been subjected to cruelty or harassment and (iii) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by relative of her husband. 18. The word 'cruelty' within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC has been explained in Explanation appended to Section 498A of the IPC. It consists of two clauses namely clause (a) and clause (b). To attract Section 498A of the IPC, it must be established that cruelty or harassment to the wife to coerce her or cause bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide or the harassment was to compel her to fulfill illegal demand for dowry. It is not every type of harassment or cruelty that would attract Section 498A of the IPC. Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC contemplates harassment of woman to coerce or any relation of her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. The complainant if wants to come within the ambit of Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC, she can succeed if it is 12 proved that there was an unlawful demand by the husband or any of his relatives with respect to money or of some valuable security. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priya Vrat Singh and others v. Shyam Ji Sahai 13 considered the issue of delay in lodging the complaint as well as role that has been ascribed to the accused therein and quashed the complaint holding the delay of two years in lodging FIR to be fatal and further held that no role has been ascribed to the petitioner/accused therein. It was observed as under:- "8. Further it is pointed out that the allegation of alleged demand for dowry was made for the first time in December, 1994. In the complaint filed, the allegation is that the dowry torture was made some times in 1992. It has not been explained as to why for more than two years no action was taken. 9. Further, it appears that in the complaint petition. apart from the husband, the mother of the husband, the subsequently married wife, husband's mother's sister, husband's brother in law and Sunita's father were impleaded as party. No role has been specifically ascribed to anybody except the husband and that too of a dowry demand in February 1993 when the complaint was filed on 6.12.1994 i.e. nearly after 22 months. It is to be noted that in spite of service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of Respondent No.1." 13 (2008) 8 SCC 232 13 20. Similarly, in the matter of Sunder Babu and others v. State of Tamil Nadu 14 delay in filing complaint against accused therein was taken note of by their Lordships of the Supreme Court holding the case to be covered by Category Seven of para-102 highlighted in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), the prosecution for offence under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was quashed. 21. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Supreme Court 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, 506 and 304- B of the IPC would not be justified as cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process. 22. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others 15 their Lordships of 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. 23. Recently, in the matter of Rashmi Chopra (supra) it has been held by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon the principle 14 (2009) 14 SCC 244 15 (2018) 14 SCC 452 14 of law laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case (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's case (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 15 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....." 24. Having noticed the legal position qua quashing the FIR and charge- sheet, the question would be whether taking the contents of the FIR and charge-sheet as it is, offence under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners? 25. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of the complainant/respondent No.2 with petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 07.05.2017 as per Hindu rites and rituals, and thereafter she was allegedly subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and his family members in connection with demand of dowry and matrimonial disputes. On 10.08.2023, the respondent No.2 lodged a written complaint before Mahila Thana, Durg alleging physical and mental harassment, pursuant to which the matter was enquired into by the police authorities. Thereafter, on the basis of the said complaint, FIR bearing Crime No. 87/2023 was registered at Police Station Mahila 16 Thana, Durg for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC against the petitioners. During the course of investigation, statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded and, upon completion of investigation, the allegations were found prima facie substantiated, and charge-sheet/final report No. 84/2023 was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, who took cognizance and registered Criminal Case No. 10753/2023 against the petitioners. 26. In the complaint so made, the complainant/respondent No.2 has levelled only omnibus and general allegations against the present petitioners without furnishing specific particulars with regard to date, time and place of the alleged incidents, broadly stating that all the petitioners, including the husband, subjected her to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. There is no distinct or specific allegation attributed to any particular petitioner, except vague and sweeping statements against all of them that they demanded cash and other household articles, without indicating any overt act or individual role. 27. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, and upon perusal of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet wherein no specific allegations have been made and only bald and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie no offence under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences, and the prosecution launched against them is squarely covered by Categories (1), (3) and (7) of paragraph 102 of the 17 judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal’s case, and as such, the same is liable to be quashed. 28. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis and in the facts and circumstances of the case, Criminal Case No. 10753/2023 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, arising out of Crime No. 87/2023 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 498- A/34 of the IPC, is hereby quashed in its entirety against all the petitioners. Consequently, all further proceedings arising therefrom stand set aside. 29. The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved