1 2026:CGHC:19573-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 838 of 2026 1 - Naveen Pratap Singh S/o Shri Haresh Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 2 - Haresh Singh S/o Late Shri Bisahu Singh Aged About 70 Years R/o Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 3 - Vindhyeshwari Singh W/o Shri Haresh Singh Aged About 66 Years R/o Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 2 - Manisha Singh W/o Naveen Pratap Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State. : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice . 28/04/2026 Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.05.04 15:26:57 +0530 2 Heard Ms. Seema Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the State and Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2. The present Cr.M.P. is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioners, who are the husband and parents-in-law of respondent No. 2/complainant, for quashing of the charge-sheet filed in Challan No. 529/2025 arising out of FIR No. 554/2025 dated 28.10.2025 registered at Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom, which are under challenge in the present petition. 3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 is the husband of respondent No. 2, and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are his aged parents, who have been arrayed as accused in the present case. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 15.12.2018, and out of the wedlock, a male child was born. Petitioner No. 1, being a member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), was posted at various places outside the State, and respondent No. 2 accompanied him during his postings, reflecting normal matrimonial cohabitation. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties, and respondent No. 2 chose to reside at her parental home of her own accord. Prior to the registration of the FIR, the petitioners had also submitted a complaint apprehending false implication. Thereafter, 3 respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 0554/2025 dated 28.10.2025 at Police Station Akaltara under Section 498-A IPC, pursuant to which a charge-sheet has been filed and criminal proceedings are pending before the competent Court. The petitioners contend that the allegations are false, vague, and do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, and that the proceedings are an abuse of the process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the entire allegations made against the petitioners are false and without any basis. The impugned FIR and charge-sheet are liable to be quashed as, even if the allegations are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC, there being no specific allegation of unlawful dowry demand or harassment and only vague and omnibus allegations, particularly against the aged parents who were not residing with the couple, the admitted position that the jewellery remained in a bank locker in the name of respondent No. 2 further negates the allegation of dowry demand, while her conduct in accompanying petitioner No. 1 during his postings and thereafter voluntarily residing at her parental home is inconsistent with the allegations of sustained cruelty or abandonment, and the conduct of petitioner No. 1 in continuing normal family affairs demonstrates absence of any intention to sever the matrimonial relationship; moreover, prior to the FIR, the petitioners had already submitted a complaint apprehending false implication and 4 respondent No. 2 had unilaterally initiated name-change proceedings of the minor child while suppressing material facts, indicating mala fide intent, and thus the dispute being purely matrimonial in nature, continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law, warranting interference by this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to secure the ends of justice. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/State that the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is misconceived and not maintainable at this stage, as the impugned FIR and the charge- sheet disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offence under Section 498-A IPC, and a detailed investigation has already been conducted culminating in filing of charge-sheet before the competent Court; it is further submitted that the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations, including the aspect of dowry demand, cruelty, and the role of each accused, are matters of evidence to be adjudicated during trial and cannot be gone into in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, the FIR contains specific allegations which cannot be brushed aside as vague or omnibus at this stage, and the defence set up by the petitioners is purely factual in nature requiring evidence, moreover, the settled legal position is that quashing at the stage of charge-sheet is an exception and not the rule, and where the allegations disclose a prima facie case, the proceedings ought not to be stifled, hence, 5 no ground is made out for interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant has submitted that the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is wholly misconceived and has been filed with an intent to scuttle a legitimate criminal prosecution, as the FIR and the charge-sheet disclose specific allegations of cruelty and harassment within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC, which cannot be brushed aside at this stage on a hyper-technical or selective reading of the material, it is further submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioners are purely matters of defence and disputed questions of fact, which require full-fledged trial and evidence, and the inherent jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to conduct a mini trial or assess the veracity of allegations, the allegations of mental and physical cruelty, coupled with dowry-related harassment, constitute a cognizable offence and have been duly investigated, resulting in filing of charge-sheet, thereby establishing prima facie material against the accused. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document annexed with the petition. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record, and taking into account the nature of allegations made in the FIR as 6 well as the contents of the charge-sheet, this Court is of the view that even if the allegations are taken at their face value, they do not prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A IPC, as the allegations are largely general, vague, and omnibus in nature without specific instances of cruelty or dowry demand, further, continuation of criminal proceedings in the present case would amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly when the dispute appears to be essentially matrimonial in nature arising out of personal differences between the parties. In view of the settled legal position governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Court is satisfied that the present case warrants interference to secure the ends of justice, and accordingly, the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed. 9. In the matter of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2022(6) SCC 599, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated as under:- "10. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the appellants and respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the appellants in-laws are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed.? 11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498-A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also 7 increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498-A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P. , has observed:- “14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498-A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement." 13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, it was also observed; “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498- A IPC is a cognizable and non- bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand- fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” 14.Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, it has also been observed:- 8 “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. 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 of husband's close relations 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 complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and 9 bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 15. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP, it was observed:- “21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: "12..... “there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, 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 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 reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the 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.” The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.” 16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, it was also observed that:- "6......The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 10 17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498-A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that "all accused harassed herm mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy". Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein, i.e., none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by10 each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution." 10. Considering the entire material on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there are sufficient grounds to interfere in the present matter, as the allegations in FIR No. 0554/2025 under Section 498-A IPC are general and vague in nature and do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence against the petitioners. This Court finds that there are sufficient grounds to interfere in the present petition 11 for quashing FIR No. 0554/2025 registered at Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa for the offence under Section 498-A IPC against the petitioners namely Naveen Pratap Singh, Haresh Singh and Vindhyeshwari Singh, and accordingly, the said FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 11. With the aforesaid conclusion, the present petition is allowed. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok