1 2026:CGHC:6732-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2359 of 2025 1 - Sunil Kumar Naidu S/o Late P. J. Naidu Aged About 50 Years (Now 56 Years) R/o Vidya Nagar, Sector 2-3, Amlidih Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Pollulu Sheela Naidu W/o Sunil Naidu Aged About 57 Years (Now 63 Years) R/o Vidya Nagar, Sector 2- 3, Amlidih Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Archana Naidu W/o Shri Nitesh Naidu Aged About 31 Years (Now 37 Years), R/o Ganga Nagar, Phase-II, Mangla Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Dheeraj Naidu S/o Sunil Kumar Naidu Aged About 33 Years (Now 39 Years), R/o House No. 21, Sector-2, Vidya Nagar Amlidih Raipur, Permanent Address House No. 23, Sector-2, Vidya Nagar Amlidih, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - P. Ganga Naidu W/o Anil Kumar Naidu Aged About 51 Years (Now 57 Years), R/o Qtr. No. Type 2 P.A.T Colony, Bayron Bazar, P.S City Kotwali District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. P. Deepali @ Ritu Naidu D/o Anil Kumar Naidu Aged About 27 Years (Now 33 Years), R/o Qtr. No. 2-19, P.N.G. Colony, Bayron Bazar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - Jaya Naidu W/o Dilip Naidu Aged About 51 Years (Now 57 Years), R/o House No. 19, Sector-2, Vidya Nagar, Amlidih, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Mahila Thana, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Vaishali Naidu W/o Dheeraj Naidu Aged About 33 Years R/o Canal Road, Amlidih, Near Garden, Rented House Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Near Sahu Ata Chakki, Shree Nagar, Near Durga, Mandir, Khamtarai, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents _________________________________________________________ ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Satya Prakash Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate (through video conferencing) Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06 .0 2 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Satya Prakash Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 through video conferencing. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers : “I. Allow this petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. filed by the petitioners. II. Quash the impugned FIR dated 29.11.2018 bearing Crime No. 48/2018 registered at Police Station, Mahila Thana, District-Raipur (C.G.) for the offence U/s 498-A, 294, 323, 506,34 of IPC against the petitioners. III. Quash the impugned Final Report No. 41/2018 dated 24.12.2018 submitted by Police Station, Mahila Thana before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Raipur for the offence U/s 498-A, 294, 323, 506,34 of IPC against the petitioners. The copy of relevant part of challan is annexed as ANNEXURE P/1. IV. Quash the impugned orders dated 22.06.2019 as 3 well as the entire criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 8927/2018 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur for the offence U/s 498-A, 323, 506,34 of IPC against the petitioners. V. Discharge the petitioners from the offence U/s 498- A, 323, 506,34 of IPC. VI. Grant any other relief, which may be deemed fit in given facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of petitioners.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of petitioner No. 4 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 18.11.2016 at Shankar Nagar, Raipur and after marriage, the respondent No. 2 came in the house of petitioner No. 4 for performing matrimonial obligations. The petitioner No.1 is the father-in-law, petitioner No.2 is mother-in-law, petitioner No.3 is sister-in-law (living in her matrimonial house), petitioner No. 4 is husband, petitioner No. 5 is sister-in-law (living in her matrimonial house), petitioner No. 6 is uncle-in-law and petitioner No. 7 is aunt-in- law of the respondent No.2. 4. After marriage, the respondent No. 2 came to the house of petitioner no. 3 for performing matrimonial obligations and right from beginning, the respondent No. 2 does not want to live with the mother- in-law and father-in-law and she wants to live separately with her husband (petitioner No. 4), therefore she started pressurizing the petitioner No. 4 for living separately. 5. After one year of marriage on 05.11.2017 a girl child was born and therefore she went to her maternal home at Devendra Nagar for taking 4 medical and physical rest. On 26.05.2018 at about 4-5 p.m. complainant Vaishali came to the house of the petitioner No.4 by riding Activa motorcycle and when the petitioner No.1 and husband Dheeraj petitioner No. 4 were on the duty, the mother-in-law ie. petitioner No.2 was alone at home where she inflected filthy words in loud sound and beaten the door heavily, upon that the petitioner No. 2 feared and mentally shocked on the act committed by the complainant Vaishali. Thereafter, the complainant has made a false complaint against the petitioners on 29.05.2018 at Mahila Thana Raipur for demand of dowry, cruelty and mental torture. Upon the said complaint made by Vaishali, counseling was done on 23.06.2018, the statements of complainant and her husband Dheeraj petitioner No. 3 were recorded. In her statement, the complainant has admitted the fact that she want to reside separately with the husband and do not want to reside with the father-in-law and mother-in-law. Similarly, statement of petitioner Dheeraj was recorded, in which, he was ready to live in separate house with his wife. The counseling was again done on 14.07.2018, where the complainant agreed to reside with the husband in separate house, but the house was not liked by the complainant. Thereafter the case was referred to the Legal Service Authority at the Family Welfare Committee, Raipur where compromise was done to reside together in separate home away from the father-in-law and mother-in-law at rented house. But inspite of all that the behaviour of the complainant /respondent No. 2 was not changed, since the reason that the rented house was near to the home, so that she always went to her maternal home on the petty matter. 5 6. Meanwhile, on 02.06.2018 Dheeraj Naidu petitioner No.4 made a complaint to the police through the letter regarding the conduct of the respondent No. 2. On 07.08.2018, the respondent No. 2 has filed an application for Restitution of Conjugal Right u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur on the false ground and deliberate manner without any cause of action. Uon the above act committed by the respondent No. 2, the compromise agreement was made between the respondent No. 2 and Dheeraj (petitioner No.4) on 23.08.2018, after one year of gape, from the 03.08.2017 she went to maternal home after ritual of God Bharai attended in her husband home, then she came back on 23.08.2018, wherein they agreed to reside together in the separate rented house at Baron Bazar Raipur (government quarter) away from her father-in-law and mother-in-law. 7. On 03.11.2018 Dheeraj petitioner No. 3 made a complaint to the Police Station City Kotwali, Raipur against the respondent No. 2, which was registered under section 155 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the police and suggested to take recourse of the competent Court. Thereafter, on 16.11.2018 the petitioner No.3 made a rent agreement with the Radhe Shyam Verma to take house in rent to live with his wife away from father-in-law and mother-in-law. 8. On 26.11.2018, respondent No. 2 made a complaint at Police Station Rajendra Nagar against the petitioners, but no FIR was registered by the police, since the matter was petty, therefore respondent No. 2 went to her maternal home and again on 29.11.2018 she has lodged a complaint at Mahila Thana Raipur and pressurized the 6 police to register an FIR against the petitioners. Ultimately she succeeded in registering the FIR against the present petitioners u/s 498-A, 294, 323, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code on the false ground. The police has registered FIR without the counseling and the petitioners were arrested and released on bail by the trial Court and charge sheet has been filed by the police on 24.12.2018 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had preferred Cr.M.P. No. 1143/2019 before this Court and since during pendency of the said petition, the charges were framed and the trial was started, therefore, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh challenging the order framing charge. Hence, this petition. 10. Considering the fact that the dispute arrived at between the parties is matrimonial in nature, though the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court directing the petitioners to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- which shall be payable to respondent No.2 on her appearance, but, as per the report of the Mediation Centre, mediation between the parties could not be succeeded. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the marriage of the petitioner No.4 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 18.11.2016 at Shankar Nagar, Raipur as per the Hindu rituals and right from the beginning, respondent No.2 does not wants to live with petitioner No.1 (father-in-law) and petitioner No.2 (mother-in-law) and wants to live separately in other rented house along with his husband (petitioner No.4), but since, the petitioner No.4 is only son of his old father & 7 mother and he has to look after them, he does not want to live separately and such, respondent No.2 always behaving rudely with the husband and her father-in-law and mother-in-law, always annoyed and quarreled in the petty matters with them and after one year of marriage on 05.11.2017, a girl child was born and thereafter, she went to her maternal home at Devendra Nagar for taking medical and physical rest and lodged a false complaint against the petitioners on 29.05.2018 at Mahila Thana, Raipur for demand of dowry, cruelty and mental torture and ultimately FIR was registered against the petitioners under Section 498A, 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC and charge-sheet was filed by the Police on 24.12.2018 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, wherein charges were framed against the petitioners on 22.06.2019. It has been further argued that the petitioners have never subjected the complainant/ respondent No.2 to cruelty on account of demand of dowry, the complainant herself has left her matrimonial house, without any reasonable cause and only ominous and vague allegations are made in the FIR and case diary statement, which does not constitute an offence under Section 498A/34 of IPC. He further submitted that statement of respondent No.2 has already been recorded by the trial Court, wherein she has made bald allegation against the petitioner No.1, who is her father-in-law for the first time, which she had never made in the FIR for in the earlier complaints made by her. He also submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are manipulative and has been exaggerated by the complainant in order to implicate the petitioners in the false case. He also stated that an act to constitute 8 offence, the allegation should demonstrate the intention and act of the present petitioners towards the respondent No.2, as the petitioners have never done any such act which falls under definition of Section 498-A, 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC. 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, as such, he prays for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings. 12. 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 Section 498-A, 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC 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 the trial has already been commenced and statement of the complainant has already been recorded. 13. Learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2/complainant, would submit that there are serious allegations against the petitioners for treating respondent No. 2 with cruelty and demand of dowry. He would further submit that all submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners relate to question of fact, that can be considered during the course of trial and that cannot be considered at this stage and that too in proceeding under Section 528 of the BNSS, as such, it is the case where the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 17. 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 10 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. 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 11 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..…” 18. 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. 19. 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 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. 12 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 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, 13 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 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.” 14 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 Hon’ble Apex Court quashed the FIR, the charge-sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court. 20. In the complaint so made, the complainant/respondent No. 2 has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners without being full particulars about date and place that all the petitioners including the husband treated her with cruelty for not bringing sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. There is no specific allegation regarding anyone of the petitioners except common and general allegations against all the petitioners that they have demanded dowry. 15 21. 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 under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC is made out for prosecuting petitioner No.1 - Sunil Kumar Naidu, petitioner No. 2- Smt. Pollulu Sheela Naidu, petitioner No.3 – Archana Naidu, petitioner No.5 – P. Ganga Naidu, petitioner No. 6 – Smt. P. Deepali @ Ritu Naidu and petitioner No. 7 – Jaya Naidu for the above-stated offences. 22. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, the instant petition so far as it relates to petitioner No.1 -Sunil Kumar Naidu, petitioner No. 2- Smt. Pollulu Sheela Naidu, petitioner No.3 – Archana Naidu, petitioner No.5 – P. Ganga Naidu, petitioner No. 6 – Smt. P. Deepali @ Ritu Naidu and petitioner No. 7 – Jaya Naidu is allowed and entire criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 8927/2018 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur so far as it relates to said petitioners is hereby quashed. However, the petition so far as it relates to petitioner No.4 – Dheeraj Naidu is concerned, the same is accordingly, dismissed. 23. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra