1 2026:CGHC:19283-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2485 of 2025 1 - Shyam Soni S/o Shri Shivkumar Soni, Aged About 29 Years R/o- Dewangan Mohalla, Ganiyari (Wrongly Mentioned As- Gariyari In Cause Title), P.S. Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Sachin Sahu, S/o Prahlad Sahu, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Samdil Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Shivkumar Soni, S/o Late Mahesh Ram Soni, Aged About 63 Years R/o Dewangan Mohalla, Ganiyari (Wrongly Mentioned As- Gariyari In Cause Title), P.S. Kota, Dist.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Mrs. Meena Soni, W/o Shivkumar Soni, Aged About 59 Years R/o Dewangan Mohalla, Ganiyari (Wrongly Mentioned As- Gariyari In Cause Title), P.S. Kota, Dist.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Shweta Soni, W/o. Sunil Soni Aged About 37 Years R/o- H.No. 211 B Type, Sector Balco Nagar, Police Station- Balco, District Korba (C.G.) 6 - Jyoti Soni W/o Prakash Soni, Aged About 36 Years R/o- G-6, District Hospital Campus Ramgarh, Mungeli, Police Station And District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Archi Soni, D/o. Anil Soni, Aged About 21 Years R/o Near Chhoti Masjid, Basna, P.S. Basna, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.04.28 10:20:18 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Akhtar Hussain, Advocate For Respondent No.1-State For Respondent No.2 : : Mr.Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Mr.Vikas Pandey, Advocate 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.Akhtar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr.Vikas Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. By this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s): “1. By quashing the Charge-sheet no. 190/2025 (prepared on 06.7.2025) filed on 21.07.2025 as well as the FIR no. 155/2025, under Section 74, 85, 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5), 316(2) of B.N.S. registered at Police Station Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). 2. By quashing of Criminal proceeding and cognizance taken by the learned Trial Court, Basna (C.G.) dated 21.07.2025 in Criminal Case no. 1298/2025 pending before J.M.F.C., Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3 3. It is alleged that the complainant submitted a written complaint stating that her marriage with Shyam Soni (petitioner No.1) was solemnized on 12.12.2024. After the marriage, she went to reside at her matrimonial home located at village Ganiyari, Kota, Bilaspur. At the time of marriage, certain cash, jewellery, and household items were given by her family. Subsequent to the marriage, the complainant was subjected to demands for additional articles, including a car. It is stated that a vehicle was purchased in her name by her family; however, dissatisfaction was allegedly expressed and further demands were made. It is also alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by her husband and certain members of his family. 4. It is further alleged that on 12.02.2025, at about 10:00 P.M., an individual employed as a servant entered her room and behaved inappropriately with her. When she raised an alarm and informed her family members in the matrimonial home, she was allegedly subjected to verbal abuse, physical assault, and threats. It is alleged that on 13.02.2025, in the early hours of the morning, she was taken to her parental home. It is also alleged that threats were extended to her to deter her from reporting the incident, including threats relating to misuse of her personal information. 5. Upon receipt and examination of the complaint, the police registered a case under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and initiated investigation into the matter and after 4 completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.). The case was registered as Criminal Case No. 1298/2025, and cognizance was taken on 21.07.2025. The matter is stated to be pending consideration on charge, with the next date of hearing fixed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR or charge-sheet. It is submitted that the petitioners are close family members of the complainant, along with one acquaintance, and belong to a respectable background. The allegations made are general and omnibus in nature, lacking specific attribution of roles, and do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. It is further submitted that no overt act, either active or passive, has been committed by the petitioners. They have not made any unlawful demands nor subjected the complainant to any form of cruelty. 7. Learned counsel submits that the dispute appears to have arisen out of matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband, and the entire family, along with an acquaintance, has been implicated. It is contended that the complaint has been filed with mala fide intent, to exert pressure and cause harassment. It is submitted that the complainant left the matrimonial home of her 5 own volition, and the allegations in the complaint do not establish any criminal offence against the petitioners. It is further submitted that, for constituting the alleged offences, specific intent and acts are required; however, no such material is available on record against the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have already been granted appropriate reliefs by competent courts, including anticipatory bail and interim protection, and have cooperated with the investigation. The matter has also been referred for mediation. 8. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 is a doctor by profession, petitioner No.2 is family friend of petitioner No.1 and others are family members of petitioner No.l1. It is also contended that there has been an unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, which raises doubt regarding the veracity of the allegations. It is submitted that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law, as no prima facie case is made out. In light of the above submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 9. 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 in MCRCA Nos. 730/2025 and 732/2025. It is further submitted that maintenance has already been granted to 6 the wife and that the mediation between the parties has failed. In view of the above, it would be a futile exercise to refer the matter again to the Mediation Centre. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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.....” 14. 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. 15. 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 16. In the 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 Fortuner car instead of a Dzire car. 17. 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 74, 85, 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) and 316(2) of the BNS is made out for prosecuting the petitioners for the above-stated offences. 18. As a consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, Criminal Case No. 1298/2025, pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basna, District Mahasamund, arising out of Crime No. 155/2025 registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund, for offences under Sections 74, 85, 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5), and 316(2) of the BNS, along with Charge-sheet No. 190/2025 filed against the petitioners, is hereby quashed. 19. The petition under Section 528 BNSS is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. However, it is made clear that the application filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 125 CrPC before the concerned court, as well as any other proceedings, if 14 any, initiated by respondent No. 2 before the concerned court, shall be considered and decided by the said court independently and without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Bablu