2026:CGHC:21966-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1205 of 2026 1 - Rishabh Singh S/o Akhilesh Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Bajrang Paan Thela, Hari, Nagar Durg, Thana -Mohan Nagar District -Durg C.G. 2 - Nibha Singh W/o Akhilesh Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Near Bajrang Paan Thela, Hari, Nagar, Durg Thana -Mohan Nagar, District -Durg C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Police Station Mahila Thana Durg- District Durg C.G. 2 - Shikha Singh W/o Rishabh Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o (Maternal Home) Plot No.-4, Near B-Krishan Grand City Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners : Shri Rishabh Bisen, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Saurabh Sahu, PL For Respondent-2/wife : Shri Shikhar Sharma, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11.05.2026 Heard Shri Rishabh Bisen, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri Saurabh Sahu, PL appearing for the respondent/State and Shri Shikhar Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for respondent-2, and he is going to file his Vakalatnama during course of the day. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.05.15 20:11:12 +0530 Crmp 1205 of 2026 2 1. Petitioners have filed the present petition with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed accordingly that on the above facts, circumstances and grounds this instant petition be allowed and quash the FIR No.0105 of 2023 for the offence u/s 498-A of the IPC read with 34 of lthe IPC for the petitioner no.1 and 2, registered at Police Station :Mahila Thana, District:- Durg (CG) and the Chargesheet/final Report No.06/2024 dated 10.02.2024 filed against the petitioner no.1 and 2 and also to quash the order the order of taking cognizance dated 10.09.2024 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, District-Durg (CG) in Regular Criminal Case No.1370/2024 State V.Rishabh Singh and 1 another and the charges framed against the petitioner No.1 and 2 passed in criminal case No.5464/2024 (wrongly mentioned – correction RCC No.1370 of 2024) passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, passed on 10.09.2024 and the further order sheet dated 16.02.2024 to 18.02.2026 in the interest of justice. Any other relief with this Hon’ble Court may think just and proper may also kindly be allowed in the interest of justice.” 2. It transpires from the order-sheet dated 29.04.2026 that the matter being matrimonial in nature, it was sent for mediation. Pursuant to said order, the petitioner/husband was directed to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- for the mediation purpose, and the said amount could not be deposited by the petitioner-1, and he filed IA-2 of 2026 today for reduction of the said deposit amount, as he is job less. 3. Brief facts of the case are that marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 07.12.2022 according to Hindu Crmp 1205 of 2026 3 rites and rituals. After the marriage, respondent No.2 started residing at her matrimonial house along with the petitioners-1 and 2. Subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties and respondent No.2 lodged a written complaint before Mahila Thana, Durg, CG alleging cruelty, harassment and demand of gold ring and bangles by the petitioners and other family members. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No.0105/2023 came to be registered for offence under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC. 4. During investigation, statements of the complainant, her family members and certain witnesses were recorded. Though similar allegations were levelled against the sisters of petitioner No.1 namely Priyanka Singh and Anshu Singh, the investigating agency did not file charge-sheet against them and they were exonerated during investigation. However, charge-sheet came to be filed only against the present petitioners and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg took cognizance on 10.09.2024 in Regular Criminal Case No.1370/2024 and framed charges under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. Challenging the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order and consequential proceedings, the present petition has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire allegations made in the FIR and statements recorded during investigation are omnibus, vague and general in nature and no specific overt act constituting cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC has been Crmp 1205 of 2026 4 attributed to the petitioners. It is contended that except bald allegations regarding taunting and demand of gold ring and bangles, no specific date, time or incident has been narrated by the complainant. 6. It is further submitted that the investigating agency itself found the allegations against similarly situated family members, namely Priyanka Singh and Anshu Singh, to be false and consequently no charge-sheet was filed against them. According to learned counsel, the allegations against the present petitioners are also identical in nature and continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. 7. Learned counsel would further submit that no medical evidence has been collected by the prosecution to establish any physical cruelty or injury suffered by respondent No.2. It is argued that the dispute between the parties is purely matrimonial in nature arising out of incompatibility and misunderstanding between the spouses. It is also submitted that despite pendency of the criminal case since the year 2024, not a single witness out of the cited 19 witnesses has been examined till date. 8. Placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 06 SCC 599, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that where allegations are vague and general in nature and do not disclose the Crmp 1205 of 2026 5 ingredients of the offence, the High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction can quash the criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent/State, as well as learned counsel for respondent-2 would jointly submit that after due investigation the petitioners have been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and prima-facie material collected is sufficient to put the petitioners at trial and considering the material available on record, it cannot be held that no prima-facie case against the petitioners for standing trial is made out. He would further submit that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. is extremely limited as FIR and charge-sheet cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient evidence available on record to put the accused persons to trial. 10. Learned counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Taramani Parakh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2015) 11 SCC 260 to buttress their submissions that allegation of cruelty is question of fact to be established during trial, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. It is further submitted that after due investigation, the jurisdictional police has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners in which there are serious allegations against the petitioners for treating respondent No.2 with cruelty. He would further submit that all submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners relate to question of fact, that can be considered Crmp 1205 of 2026 6 during the course of trial and the same cannot be considered at this stage, that too in proceeding under Section 528 B.N.S.S. as all ingredients of the aforesaid offences are available to put the petitioners to trial. As such, it is the case where the petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 13. At the outset, it would be appropriate to consider the scope of interference in charge-sheet filed by the police against accused in extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 B.N.S.S. 14. In the matter of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998) 5 SCC 749 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the accused can approach the High Court either under Section 482 of the CrPC or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhajan Lal (supra) laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down Crmp 1205 of 2026 7 the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution 528 of the B.N.S.S. should be exercised, which are as under: - “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by Crmp 1205 of 2026 8 police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which criminal proceeding is a instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. Crmp 1205 of 2026 9 (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 16. The principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) has been followed recently by the Supreme Court in the matters of Google India Private Limited v. Visaka Industries1, Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another2 and Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar. v. State of Maharashtra and others3. The Supreme Court in case of Google India Private Limited (supra), explained the scope of dictum of Bhajan Lal's case (supra) that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding be exercised very sparingly and with 1(2020) 4 SCC 162 2(2020) 13 SCC 435 3(2019) 18 SCC 191 Crmp 1205 of 2026 10 circumspection and "that too in the rarest of rare cases" as indicated in paragraph 103 therein of the report. 17. Having noticed the scope of interference by this Court in the petition relating to quashment of FIR/charge-sheet, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that in the impugned charge-sheet, four petitioners have been charged for offences under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC. 18. Chapter XXA of the IPC deals with offence of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband. Section 498A of the IPC defines the offence of cruelty as under:- “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any Crmp 1205 of 2026 11 unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 19. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to establish offence under Section 498A of the IPC, the prosecution must establish, (i) That, woman must be married: (ii) She has been subjected to cruelty or harassment and (iii) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by relative of her husband. 20. The word 'cruelty' within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC has been explained in Explanation appended to Section 498A of the IPC. It consists of two clauses namely clause (a) and clause (b). To attract Section 498A of the IPC, it must be established that cruelty or harassment to the wife to coerce her or cause bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide or the harassment was to compel her to fulfill illegal demand for dowry. It is not every type of harassment or cruelty that would attract Section 498A of the IPC. Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC contemplates harassment of woman to coerce or any relation of her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. The complainant if wants to come within the ambit of Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC, she can succeed if it is proved that there was an Crmp 1205 of 2026 12 unlawful demand by the husband or any of his relatives with respect to money or of some valuable security. 21. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Supreme Court 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, 506 and 304- B of the IPC would not be justified as cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process. 22. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others4 their Lordships of 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. 23. 23. Recently, in the matter of Rashmi Chopra Vs State of UP5 it has been held by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon the principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) that criminal proceedings can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie offence 4(2018) 14 SCC 452 5(2019) 15 SCC 357 Crmp 1205 of 2026 13 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case (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's case (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 Crmp 1205 of 2026 14 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....." 24. Having noticed the legal position qua quashing the FIR and charge- sheet, the question would be whether taking the contents of the FIR and charge-sheet as it is, offence under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners, or not. 25. 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 petitioner no. 2, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Section 498 A of IPC is made out for prosecuting petitioner No. 2 Nibha Singh the above-stated offences and the prosecution against thh her for the aforesaid offence is covered by Category 1, 3 & 7 of para-102 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) and as such, it is liable to be quashed. Crmp 1205 of 2026 15 26. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds that the allegations leveled against petitioner No.2 namely Nibha Singh are omnibus, vague and general in nature and no specific overt act constituting cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC has been attributed to her. It is also relevant to note that on similar set of allegations, the sisters of petitioner No.1 namely Priyanka Singh and Anshu Singh were exonerated during investigation and no charge-sheet was filed against them. Continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioner No.2, who is the mother-in-law of respondent No.2, would therefore, amount to abuse of process of law. 27. Accordingly, FIR No.0105/2023 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Durg for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC, charge-sheet/final report No.06/2024 dated 10.02.2024, order taking cognizance dated 10.09.2024 passed in RCC No.1370/2024 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed to the extent of petitioner No.2 , namely Nibha Singh only. 28. However, the criminal proceedings against petitioner No.1 namely, Rishabh Singh shall continue in accordance with law. 29. It is made clear that all observations made in this order are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and this Court has not Crmp 1205 of 2026 16 expressed any opinion on the merits of the case pending against petitioner No.1. The learned trial Court shall proceed and decide the criminal case pending against petitioner No.1 strictly in accordance with law and without being influenced by any observations made hereinabove. 30. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma