1 2026:CGHC:587-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3274 of 2025 1 - Nitin Tiku S/o Late Ashok Tiku Aged About 35 Years R/o Flat No.16112, Prestige Finsbury Park Regent, Aerospace Park, Bagalur, Bengaluru, Karnataka. 2 - Smt. Anita Tiku W/o Late Ashok Tiku Aged About 60 Years R/o Flat No. 16112, Prestige Finsbury Park Regent, Aerospace Park, Bagalur, Bengaluru, Karnataka. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Mahila Thana District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Gunjan Kaur Jabbal W/o Shri Nitin Tiku Aged About 36 Years R/o 3rd Floor, Jabbal Towers, Near Kotak Mahindra Bank, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent /State : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl Advocate General. For Respondent No. 2/wife-complainant : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06/01/2026 1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with following relief(s): “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the First Information Report (F.I.R.) bearing Crime No.38/2025 lodged on 14.06.2025 at Police Station -Mahila Thana, District Raipur (C.G.), quash the Charge Sheet No. 45/2025, dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) and quash the Criminal Proceeding i.e. Criminal Case No. 29254/2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, Dist Raipur (C.G.) against the present petitioners for the alleged offence punishable under 85, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 on which the cognizance was taken on 25.07.2025 (Annexure P/2 Colly), in the interest of justice..” 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that on 04.10.2017, marriage of petitioner No.1/Nitin Tiku was solemnized with respondent no.2/Smt. Gunjan kaur Jabbal according to Hindu customs in District -Jammu, Jammu & Kashmir. After marriage, couple was residing together in Bengaluru due to their jobs. After approximately 07 years 08 months of marriage, on 05.05.2025, respondent no.2 made a written complaint before Police Station - Mahila Thana, District Raipur (C.G.) against the petitioners stating 3 that despite her best efforts to adjust with her husband and his family members, she was unable to do so and due to minor disputes within the family, led to an adverse situation. The allegations in the complaint are in relation to cruelty (abusing, assaulting and mentally torture) upon the complainant-wife on the account that she was asked to buy a flat in Bengaluru by her mother-in-law and her husband, to which, respondent No.2 has denied. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the Police has lodged the First Information Report (F.I.R.) on 14.06.2025 against the present petitioners for offence punishable under Section 85, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is husband and petitioner No.2 is mother-in-law of respondent No.2/complainant (wife). Since March, 2025, complainant-wife was residing in her parent's house at Raipur, therefore, how it can possible that the petitioners have committed the the alleged offence. F.I.R has been lodged with an ill intention just to tarnish the reputation of the petitioners in the Society / Community and just to falsely implicate them. The applicant and respondent no. 2 met during training at TCS, Hyderabad and after a love affair of about 5 years, they got married in the year 2017 with the consent of their families. After marriage, they have been residing in Bangalore as husband and wife till 04/03/2025. After marriage, respondent no. 2 used to act according to her mood and when she wanted she used to behave very well but suddenly she used 4 to start acting as per her wish, but the applicant, in order to save his family, tolerated everything and ignored the occasional problems and lived a peaceful life. Till the year 2023, the behavior of the respondent no. 2 was normal and the applicant and respondent no. 2 were living their happy life, during that period she conceived and even during pregnancy, the applicant took full care to her. After the last trimester of pregnancy, applicant and respondent no.2 mutually agreed and requested the applicant's mother to come to Bangalore to take care of her, to which, she came to the applicant's house in October 2024 and taken full care of respondent no.2. Respondent no. 2 gave birth to a daughter on 12/11/2024 and after birth of daughter, mother of the respondent no. 2 came to their house and she started doing things that ruined her daughter's home. Respondent no.2's behavior started changing due to her mother misleading her against her mother-in- law and husband. Respondent no. 2 started misbehaving with the applicant and his mother almost every day and she also used to use abusive language. On 02.02.2025, some dispute took place, to which, respondent no.2 called the police and despite repeated persuasion by the police, she did not understand and kept insisting on taking actions against the applicant and his mother and threatened to implicate them in a false case and send the entire family to jail and, thereafter, she has filed a false complaint against them as per instruction of her to satisfy her anger. Respondent No.2's statements and the evidence presented by the 5 prosecution, contains the significant contradictions or inconsistencies, in the said situation, no case is made out against the present petitioners. Hence, petitioners have come before this Court with the aforesaid prayers. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/Respondent No.1 submits that once a complaint is received by the police and prima facie cognizable offence is made out, the police is bound to register the FIR and proceed in accordance with law. As such, the police has registered the FIR, investigated the matter and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the petitioners before concerned trial Court and the trial is pending consideration. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/wife submits that the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief as respondent No.2 has been subjected to cruelty and harassment on the ground that she was asked to buy a flat in Bengaluru by her mother-in-law and her husband, to which, she has denied. Hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. He would next contend that the mediation between the parties has failed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 7. 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 6 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. 8. 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. 9. 9. 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 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 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 8 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.....” 10. 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. 11. 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 9 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 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 10 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 11 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 12 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. 12. In the complaint so made, the respondent No.2/complainant has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners without being full particulars about date and place that they have treated her with cruelty for demand of purchasing the flat in Bengaluru. There is no specific allegation regarding them except common and general allegations. 13. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, material/evidence available on record, particularly the FIR in 13 which no specific allegations have been made and only bald and omnibus allegations have been levelled petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Sections 85, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 is made out for prosecuting the petitioners. 14. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that First Information Report (F.I.R.) bearing Crime No.38/2025 lodged on 14.06.2025 at Police Station -Mahila Thana, District Raipur (C.G.); Charge Sheet No.45/2025, dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) and Criminal Case No.29254/2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, Dist Raipur (C.G.) against the present petitioners for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 85, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 are liable to be and are hereby quashed. 15. 15. In the result, present petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- S Sd/ (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE J.