1 2026:CGHC:4897-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2239 of 2023 1 - Chandrabhan Sao S/o Late Shri Khemlal Sao, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kudaribahara Katel, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Kshama Nidhi Sao S/o Late Shri Sahdev Sao, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Kudaribahara Katel, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Manglu Sao, S/o Late Shri Sahdev Sao, Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Kudaribahara Katel, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Smt. Sitiya Bai Sao, Wd/o Late Shri Khemlal Sao, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Kudaribahara Katel, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Suraj Sao, S/o Late Shri Khemlal Sao, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Kudaribahara Katel, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Khushbu Sao, D/o Hemant Sahu, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Rajiv Nagar Bansul, Deepa Basna, Police Station Basana, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.01.30 11:27:30 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Manubha Shankar on behalf of Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate and Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 29.01.2026 1. Heard Ms. Manubha Shankar on behalf of Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1/State and Mr. Kishore Narayan, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. In compliance to the Court’s order dated 13.01.2026, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre. Further, the mediation report dated 20.01.2026 goes to show that the mediation between the parties failed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance to the Court’s order dated 13.01.2026, the petitioners deposited Rs.1,00,000/- to the Mediation Centre of this Court, which has already been received by the respondent No.2. 4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: 3 “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings under section 498-A, 377, 323, 506, 354, 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3, 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 pending in Criminal Case No. 504/2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.). in the interest of the justice.” 5. Prosecution story in brief is that petitioner No.1 is the husband of the complainant/respondent No.2, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are her cousin-uncles-in-law, petitioner No.4 is her mother-in-law and petitioner No.5 is her brother-in-law. The marriage of the complainant/respondent No.2 was solemnized with petitioner No.1 on 10.05.2022 according to Hindu rites and rituals, after which she stayed in her matrimonial home for about one week and thereafter started residing with petitioner No.1 at Abhanpur, where he was posted with HDFC Bank. Alleging cruelty, harassment and commission of offences relating to dowry and modesty, the complainant/respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.), and on the basis of the said application the learned JMFC, vide order dated 22.06.2023, directed Police Station Basna to register an FIR. In compliance thereof, the respondent police registered an FIR on 22.06.2023 against the petitioners for offences under Sections 498-A, 377, 323, 506, 354 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet on 11.07.2023, pursuant to which Criminal 4 Case No. 504/2023 has been registered against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences and is pending for trial before the competent court. Hence this present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are bad in law, abuse of the process of Court and liable to be quashed, as the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated by the complainant/respondent No.2 with an oblique motive. Within just 21 days of marriage, the complainant/respondent No.2 ran away from the matrimonial home with her alleged beloved namely Jagbandhu Das Vaishnav along with all her jewellery and other belongings, pursuant to which petitioner No.1 lodged a missing person report on 01.06.2022 at Police Station Abhanpur, and thereafter the complainant was recovered on 04.06.2022 and her statement was recorded by the police. The complainant/respondent No.2 was having a long-standing affair since 2019 with the said Jagbandhu Das Vaishnav and they remained in continuous contact and physical relationship even after her marriage with petitioner No.1. Even after marriage the complainant intended to reside with her said beloved and when he refused to marry her, she, with malafide intention, lodged FIR No.356/2023 dated 29.08.2022 against him under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, 1860, alleging sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage. When the petitioners objected to the extra-marital and physical relationship of the complainant/respondent No.2 with another person, she started threatening the petitioners with false implication, compelling petitioner 5 No.1 to submit complaints dated 06.04.2023 before Police Station Basna and dated 11.04.2023 before the Women Commission and the Director General of Police, Raipur (C.G.), detailing the mental and physical cruelty inflicted by the complainant and her threats to falsely implicate them. Subsequently petitioner No.1 filed an application under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 22.06.2023 before the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, Camp Court Saraypali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) seeking dissolution of marriage. Even as per the prosecution case and the statements of the complainant, there are no specific or overt allegations against the petitioners regarding any demand of dowry, thereby rendering the impugned criminal proceedings wholly untenable in the eyes of law. 7. 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 Sections 498-A, 377, 323, 506, 354, 34 of the IPC and section 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 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 FIR cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient material available on record. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 / complainant submits that respondent No.2 is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1 and the criminal proceedings in the present matter have been initiated strictly in 6 accordance with law and not in a casual or mechanical manner, as the FIR was registered pursuant to a specific direction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basna under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure after due application of judicial mind to the complaint and the material placed on record. The said judicial direction itself demonstrates that a prima facie case was found to exist against the petitioners, thereby lending judicial imprimatur to the initiation of the proceedings and clearly distinguishing the present case from those where FIRs are lodged merely at the discretion of the police. The allegations made by respondent No.2 are further substantiated by strong medical evidence, inasmuch as the Medico-Legal Certificate dated 06.04.2023 records eight distinct injuries on her person, all caused by hard and blunt objects, which are neither superficial nor self- inflicted but clearly indicative of severe physical assault. Such cogent medical evidence directly corroborates the allegations of cruelty and violence and completely belies the claim of false implication. At this stage, it is well settled that this Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, is not required to conduct a roving enquiry into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations, but only to examine whether the material on record discloses the commission of cognizable offences, which, in the present case, it unquestionably does. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the defence sought to be raised by the petitioners is based on disputed questions of fact, including false and malicious allegations regarding the 7 character and conduct of respondent No.2, which can only be adjudicated upon after a full-fledged trial. Respondent No.2 never ran away from her matrimonial home. Rather, she was compelled to leave due to continuous cruelty, mental harassment and physical violence at the hands of petitioner No.1 and his family members. The petitioners have deliberately concealed these material facts and have attempted to misuse the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to derail the lawful criminal proceedings, despite the fact that they have not challenged the order taking cognizance, the FIR or the charge-sheet dated 11.07.2023, thereby demonstrating acquiescence to the procedural validity of the prosecution. The allegations regarding dowry demand and assault have been specifically made by respondent No.2 in her complaint and statements, and the trial has already reached an advanced stage. Quashing the proceedings at this juncture would amount to a grave miscarriage of justice, depriving respondent No.2 of her right to seek redressal for the physical and mental trauma inflicted upon her and would undermine the settled legal position that where prima facie offences are disclosed and supported by credible evidence, the criminal prosecution must be permitted to proceed to its logical conclusion. 10. To which, learned counsel for the petitioners in her rejoinder submits that it is well settled that an order under Section 156(3) CrPC is merely a procedural direction enabling investigation on the basis of a unilateral complaint and does not amount to any judicial adjudication on the veracity or correctness of the allegations. The learned JMFC, while issuing the said direction, had the benefit of only the respondent’s one- 8 sided narrative and had no occasion to consider the overwhelming and contemporaneous documentary material now placed before this Court, including the official counselling reports, the missing person report, the respondent’s own contradictory statements, the prior complaints lodged by petitioner No.1, and the false FIR under Section 376(2)(n) IPC later retracted by the respondent. Consequently, the respondent’s attempt to draw presumptive credibility from the Section 156(3) order is wholly misplaced and legally untenable, as the said order is not a finding on merits but a preliminary procedural step. 11. She further submits that the record unmistakably demonstrates a consistent pattern of falsehood, contradiction and abuse of the criminal process on the part of respondent No.2, which fully justifies interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The counselling reports conducted between 25.08.2022 and 06.10.2022, which are government records, contain the respondent’s categorical admission of her extramarital relationship with Jagbandhu Vaishnav and of voluntarily eloping with him on 01.06.2022, thereby demolishing the very foundation of her subsequent allegations of cruelty and assault. The respondent has taken mutually destructive and irreconcilable stands regarding her disappearance, giving three entirely different versions at different stages, which fatally undermine her credibility. The FIR under Section 376(2)(n) IPC lodged by her against Jagbandhu Vaishnav, its subsequent retraction, and her later marriage with the very same person conclusively expose the falsity and manipulative nature of her accusations. The chronology of events further reveals that the 9 impugned FIR was lodged nearly a year after the alleged incident, only after petitioner No.1 had already approached the police, authorities, Women Commission and filed a divorce petition, clearly establishing the FIR as a vindictive counterblast motivated by retaliation. The medical evidence relied upon by the respondent records at best simple and superficial injuries, wholly inconsistent with her exaggerated allegations of brutal physical and sexual assault, and there are no specific or individual allegations against most of the family members who have been indiscriminately roped in. In view of these glaring contradictions, admissions, delay, mala fides and abuse of process, the present prosecution is manifestly vexatious and malicious, warranting quashment to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the criminal law from being used as a weapon of harassment rather than as an instrument of justice. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 13. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1, the Hon’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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 10 abuse of judicial process. 14. 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. 15. 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 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 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 11 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 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..…” 16. 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 & 12 Another {(2013) 10 SCC 591}, had quashed the FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 17. 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. 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 13 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, 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 14 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.” 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 15 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. 18. On careful consideration of the submissions and the materials placed on record, this Court finds that the prosecution case, even if taken at its face value, does not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 498-A, 377, 323, 506, 354, 34 of the IPC and Section 3, 4 of the Dowry Act against the petitioners. 19. The allegations made against petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are vague, sweeping, and omnibus in nature. No specific role or act has been attributed to them which may constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. The settled legal position is that general allegations, without supporting particulars, cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution. 16 20. Further, the conduct of the complainant/respondent No.2 during the subsistence of matrimonial discord assumes significance. The materials placed on record, including contemporaneous documents, counselling proceedings and her own prior statements, prima facie demonstrate inconsistencies and contradictions in her version of events. The admitted fact of her leaving the matrimonial home within a short span of marriage, the missing person report lodged by petitioner No.1, her recovery and subsequent statements, coupled with the lodging of multiple criminal proceedings at different points of time, clearly indicate that the criminal law has been set into motion as a measure of retaliation and counterblast to the steps taken by petitioner No.1, including lodging of complaints before authorities and initiation of matrimonial proceedings. Such a sequence of events, viewed cumulatively, lends credence to the submission that the impugned FIR was lodged with an oblique motive. 21. Further, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that pursuant to the order dated 13.01.2026, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court in order to explore the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties. The mediation proceedings, however, failed, as reflected from the mediation report dated 20.01.2026. It is also an admitted position that during the course of mediation, the petitioners, in compliance with the direction of this Court, deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Mediation Centre, which has already been received by respondent No.2. Despite such efforts and the payment made, the disputes could not be resolved. The failure of mediation, 17 coupled with the overall facts and circumstances of the case, further demonstrates that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would not serve the ends of justice and would only prolong the bitterness and harassment between the parties. 22. As regards the medical evidence relied upon by the complainant/respondent No.2, this Court is of the considered view that, even if the injuries noted in the Medico-Legal Certificate are taken at their face value, the same by themselves do not conclusively establish the commission of the alleged offences so as to justify the continuation of criminal proceedings against all the petitioners. The medical report does not specifically attribute the injuries to any particular petitioner, nor does it, in the facts of the present case, bridge the wide gap between the broad and omnibus allegations made in the complaint and the stringent penal provisions invoked. The evidentiary value and genuineness of such medical evidence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, cannot override the glaring contradictions and surrounding circumstances pointing towards mala fides. 23. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioners have been roped in a false case, including distant relatives, without specific and distinct allegations as to their individual roles. The law is well settled that in matrimonial disputes, particularly under Section 498-A IPC, the Courts must be circumspect and cautious to ensure that innocent family members are not subjected to unnecessary criminal prosecution on the basis of vague and sweeping allegations. The present case squarely 18 attracts the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) and the catena of judgments referred to hereinabove, falling within Category (7), where the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and have been instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. 24. This Court is conscious of the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS. However, where the uncontroverted allegations and the material placed on record, even if accepted in entirety, do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences and where the continuation of criminal proceedings would result in abuse of the process of Court, the High Court would not only be justified but would be duty-bound to exercise its inherent powers to secure the ends of justice. 25. In the considered opinion of this Court, permitting the criminal prosecution to continue in the present case would amount to subjecting the petitioners to unwarranted harassment and would convert the criminal process into a weapon of oppression, rather than an instrument of justice. The dispute between the parties is predominantly matrimonial in nature, laced with personal animosity and counter-allegations, which cannot be allowed to be given a purely criminal colour in the absence of a clear prima facie case. 26. Accordingly, and for all the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the firm view that the present petition deserves to be allowed. The FIR dated 22.06.2023 registered at Police Station Basna, 19 District Mahasamund (C.G.), the charge-sheet dated 11.07.2023 and the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom in Criminal Case No. 504/2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for offences under Sections 498-A, 377, 323, 506, 354, 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are hereby quashed. 27. The petition stands allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet