1 2026:CGHC:19285 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3384 of 2025 1 - Anshul Deodas S/o Shankarlal Deodas Aged About 37 Years At- Tripathi Nursing Home, Street No. 3 New Shanti Nagar, Geetanjali Colony, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Shankarlal Deodas S/o Late Banjulal Deodas Aged About 74 Years At- Tripathi Nursing Home, Street No. 3 New Shanti Nagar, Geetanjali Colony, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 3 - Ankita Deodas D/o Shankarlal Deodas Aged About 31 Years At- Tripathi Nursing Home, Street No. 3 New Shanti Nagar, Geetanjali Colony, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P/s Mahila Thana, Durg, C.G. 2 - Pragya Deodas W/o Anshul Deodas Aged About 36 Years At- Near Shubhash School, PS Mohan Nagar, Durg, District Durg, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate through video conferencing For Respondent No.1-State For Respondent No.2 : : Ms.Vaishali Mahilang, Deputy Government Advocate Ms.Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocate BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.04.28 10:15:56 +0530 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27/04/2026 1. Heard Mr.Lukesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing as well Ms.Vaishali Mahilang, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Ms.Pushpa Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.2. 2. By this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s): “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR No. 66/25 of Mahila Thana, Durg, C.G., dated 10.10.2025 being investigated for the offences under section 85 and 3(5) of the BNS so far ” 3. Facts of the case are that Petitioner No. 1 is the husband, Petitioner No. 2 is the elderly father-in-law, and Petitioner No. 3 is the unmarried sister-in-law employed in a reputed post at Raipur. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and the respondent wife was solemnized on 07.06.2024 according to Buddhist rituals, without any dowry. The FIR lodged by the respondent / wife contains only vague and omnibus allegations of cruelty and dowry demand, without specifying any dates, incidents, or particular acts. No specific allegations are made against Petitioner Nos. 2 3 and 3, and the only allegation against the husband is general marital discord. The respondent has also attempted to falsely implicate distant relatives, including an 83-year-old grandmother (Nani Saas). During preliminary inquiry, allegations against such relatives were found to be untrue and no FIR was registered against them. 4. The respondent / wife and Petitioner No. 1 were residing separately in a rented accommodation, away from the other petitioners. Hence, allegations against the father-in-law and sister- in-law are baseless and motivated. Even if the FIR is taken at face value, it does not disclose the ingredients of cruelty under the relevant law. Prior to the FIR, counselling proceedings took place, in which no allegations of dowry harassment were made. The respondent wife allegedly misbehaved with the petitioner’s family, insisted on living separately, and threatened to implicate them in false cases. The husband had lodged complaints with police authorities regarding such conduct. Due to ongoing disputes, the husband started living separately. The father-in-law resides with Petitioner No. 3. The respondent wife allegedly locked the father- in-law’s self-acquired property. The petitioners submit that they have not subjected the respondent to cruelty; rather, they are victims of false and motivated allegations. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a bare perusal of the impugned FIR clearly demonstrates that no prima facie case is 4 made out against the petitioners. The allegations are inherently vague, general, and motivated, and the complaint has been lodged with an ulterior intent to wreak personal vengeance. It is further submitted that the complaint does not disclose any specific instance of demand of dowry, coercion, or cruelty. The allegations are omnibus in nature, lacking material particulars such as dates, time, or specific acts, thereby failing to constitute any cognizable offence. Learned counsel submits that the complainant has deliberately concealed the material fact that she was residing separately along with her husband (Petitioner No. 1) in a rented accommodation belonging to one Parvati Thakur, and had never resided with Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Petitioner No. 3, being employed in a reputed post at Raipur, was also living independently. This clearly establishes that the present petitioners have been falsely implicated despite having no proximity or involvement in the alleged incidents. 6. It is submitted that had the true and complete facts been disclosed by the complainant, no offence would have been made out. The suppression of material facts coupled with vague allegations demonstrates mala fide intent on the part of the complainant. Learned counsel further submits that even during the counselling proceedings held prior to registration of the FIR, no allegation of cruelty or dowry harassment was made against the petitioners. This clearly reflects that the subsequent allegations are an afterthought. It is also evident from the record that the 5 complainant attempted to falsely implicate distant relatives, including an elderly grandmother (Nani Saas) and other relatives, which allegations were found to be untrue during preliminary inquiry. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than one year, without any satisfactory explanation. Such delay, coupled with suppression of material facts, casts serious doubt on the veracity and genuineness of the allegations. Learned counsel submits that even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value, they do not satisfy the essential ingredients of “cruelty” as defined under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. There is not a single specific allegation against Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, and their implication is clearly an abuse of the process of law. It is further submitted that although a vague allegation of demand of cash has been made, no details whatsoever regarding the nature, time, or fulfillment of such demand have been provided. This renders the allegation wholly unsubstantiated and indicative of an afterthought. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the matter was earlier referred to the Mediation Centre. It is further submitted that maintenance has already been granted to the respondent / wife and that the mediation between the parties has failed. In view of the above, it 6 would be a futile exercise to refer the matter again to the Mediation Centre. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 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. 11. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 7 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 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 8 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 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 9 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 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 10 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. 11 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 12 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.” Observing the aforesaid, the Apex Court quashed the FIR, the charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court. 13 14. In complaint so made, the complainant has levelled only omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners, without furnishing full particulars such as specific dates and places. It is alleged in a general manner that all the petitioners, including the husband, treated her with cruelty for not bringing a car, JCB machine and cash. 15. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the material available on record, and upon perusal of the FIR, which contains no specific allegations and only vague and omnibus allegations against the petitioners; and further considering that petitioner No. 1 has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- before the Mediation Center of this Court, which was paid to respondent No. 2 on 18.11.2025, and that mediation between the parties has failed, we are of the considered opinion that, prima facie, no offence under Sections 3(5) and 85 of the BNS is made out for prosecuting the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. 16. As a consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, FIR No.66/2025 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Durg dated 10.10.2025 for offence under Sections 3(5) and 85 of the BNS against the petitioners is hereby quashed. 17. The petition under Section 528 BNSS is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Bablu