1 2026:CGHC:23222-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 996 of 2026 1 - Vivekanand Bhoi S/o Shri Rabindra Bhoi Aged About 33 Years R/o Vill- Bhaleshwar, Biltkuri P.S. Nuwapuda, Dist- Nuwapuda (Odisha) 2 - Rabindra Kumar Bhoi S/o Shri Diryadhan Bhoi Aged About 63 Years R/o Vill- Bhaleshwar, Biltkuri P.S. Nuwapuda, Dist- Nuwapuda (Odisha) 3 - Mohita Kumar Bhoi S/o Shri Shankar Bhoi Aged About 54 Years R/o Vill- Bhaleshwar, Biltkuri P.S. Nuwapuda, Dist- Nuwapuda (Odisha) 4 - Kumudini Bhoi @ Kiran Bhoi W/o Shri Varun Bhoi Aged About 31 Years R/o Vill- Bhaleshwar, Biltkuri P.S. Nuwapuda, Dist- Nuwapuda (Odisha) 5 - Uditynarayan Bhoi S/o Shri Rabindra Bhoi Aged About 28 Years R/o Vill- Bhaleshwar, Biltkuri P.S. Nuwapuda, Dist- Nuwapuda (Odisha) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O. P.S. Rajadevri, Dist.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Geeta Sahu W/o Shri Vivekananda Bhoi Aged About 27 Years R/o Vill- Rajadevri, P.S. Rajadevri, Dist- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.-1 For Respondent No.2 : : Mr.Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Mr.Raghvendra Pradhan and Mr.Shikhar Sharma, Advocates BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.05.15 18:38:21 +0530 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15/05/2026 1. Heard Mr.Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan and Mr.Shikhar Sharma, 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): “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and may kindly be pleased to quash the First Information Report No. 19/2025 registered for the offence punishable U/s 498-A, 323, 354, 34 of I.P.C. at P.S. Rajadevri on 30.03.2025, Charge Sheets No. 21/2025 filed for the offence punishable U/s 498-A, 323, 354, 406, 354 (A), 34 of I.P.C. on 22.05.2025, The Cognizance order dated 23.01.2026, order of framing of charges dated 23.01.2026 whereby the charges for the offences punishable U/s 498 A, 323, 406 R/w 34 of I.P.C. has been framed against the petitioner No. 01, 03 & 04 while charges U/s 498A, 323, 406 R/w 34, 354 and 354 (a) (1) of I.P.C. has been framed against the petitioner No. 02 and charges U/s 498A, 323, 406 R/w 34 and 354 (a) (1) of I.P.C. framed against the petitioner No. 05 and consequential proceeding of Criminal Case No. 3 1261/2025 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Kasdol, Dist- Balodabzar-Bhatapara (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. As per the prosecution story, the complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a written complaint on 20.12.2024 stating that her marriage with petitioner No. 1, Vivekanand Bhoi, was solemnized on 25.06.2023 at village Bhaleshwar, Nuapada (Odisha) as per Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that from the inception of marriage, the petitioners, including her husband and in-laws, subjected her to harassment on account of dowry demands. It is further alleged that although her father had given household articles and a motorcycle as per his capacity, the petitioners later demanded a car and Rs. 40,00,000/- for purchase of a house in Mumbai, and continued to harass and torture her physically and mentally for non-fulfilment of the said demands. 4. On the basis of the said complaint, Police Station Rajadeori registered FIR No. 19/2025 on 30.03.2025 for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, and 34 of the IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet No. 21/2025 was filed on 22.05.2025 under Sections 498-A, 323, 354(a), 406, and 34 of the IPC. The learned Trial Court thereafter registered Criminal Case No. 1261/2025 on 23.01.2026, took cognizance on the same day, and framed charges against the petitioners. 4 5. The petitioners comprise petitioner No. 1, the husband; petitioner No. 2, the father-in-law; petitioner No. 3, the mother-in-law; petitioner No. 4, the married sister-in-law residing separately in her matrimonial home; and petitioner No. 5, the brother-in-law of the complainant/respondent No.2. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 was earlier working as Deputy Manager in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Mumbai, but has since resigned and is currently seeking employment. It is further stated that a complaint was made before the Chairman of the community, where both parties were present, and a meeting was held on 13.11.2024. In the said meeting, a settlement amount of Rs. 8,01,100/- was fixed. Initially the parties lived peacefully, including a visit to Mumbai on 24.02.2024; however, thereafter disputes arose and the complainant allegedly started insisting on separate residence, leading to the present proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that no offence as alleged by the complainant/respondent No.2 is made out against them, and that they have neither subjected her to any physical or mental cruelty nor made any dowry demand. It is further submitted that the allegations in the complaint are false, fabricated, and without any factual foundation, and that the FIR contains only omnibus and general allegations without specific attribution of roles to any of the petitioners. 5 7. It is further contended that neither the FIR nor the material collected during investigation prima facie establishes the commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, and 34 of the IPC. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and hence the FIR, charge-sheet, order framing charges dated 23.01.2026, and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1261/2025 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), deserve to be quashed. It is further submitted that though a settlement was earlier arrived at in a social/community meeting and an amount was deposited by petitioner No. 1, the dispute could not be finally resolved. 8. It is further argued that petitioner No. 4, Kumudni, being the married sister-in-law residing separately in her matrimonial home, has been wrongly implicated. Likewise, petitioners No. 2 and 3, being elderly parents-in-law, have been implicated only on account of their family relationship without any specific allegation against them. It is submitted that the investigation conducted by Police Station Rajadeori, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, is faulty and biased, and the charge-sheet has been filed mechanically without sufficient material. It is lastly submitted that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited by petitioner No. 1 has already been received by respondent No. 2 and mediation between the parties has failed. 6 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 petitioners have deliberately suppressed material facts and made false pleadings before this Court with the sole intention of obtaining interim relief. It is contended that the petitioners falsely stated that, pursuant to the community meeting, petitioner No. 1 had deposited Rs. 8,00,000/- and returned the Stridhan articles before the President of the community; however, neither the amount nor the Stridhan was ever handed over to respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that no receipt or documentary proof regarding such deposit has been filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners intentionally mentioned an incorrect residential address of respondent No. 2 in the petition to avoid proper service of notice, thereby demonstrating that they have not approached this Court with clean hands. 10. It is further submitted that the marriage between respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 25.06.2023 at village Bhaleshwar, District Nuapada (Odisha), according to community customs and rituals. Soon after the marriage, the petitioners allegedly started subjecting respondent No. 2 to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demands, including demand for a car and money for purchase of a house in Mumbai. Learned counsel submits that respondent No. 2 was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, deprived of proper food and water, and was 7 compelled to perform household chores under inhuman conditions. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 2/father-in-law misbehaved with respondent No. 2 and that the petitioners assaulted and harassed her when the dowry demands were not fulfilled. Ultimately, when the harassment became intolerable, respondent No. 2 informed her family members and thereafter lodged the complaint dated 20.12.2024, pursuant to which the FIR was registered after counselling proceedings. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further submits that the FIR contains specific allegations against each of the petitioners and that the police, after due investigation, filed the charge-sheet under Sections 498- A, 323, 406, 354, 354-A read with Section 34 of the IPC. 11. It is argued that sufficient material and evidence have been collected during investigation establishing a prima facie case against the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners are required to face trial before the competent Court. It is contended that no ground for quashment of the FIR or criminal proceedings is made out and that the present petition has been filed only to delay and derail the pending criminal trial. 12. It is also submitted that respondent No. 2 made sincere efforts to maintain her matrimonial relationship with petitioner No. 1, however, due to continuous physical and mental cruelty for dowry, she was compelled to initiate legal proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No. 2, during counselling 8 proceedings, disclosed certain objectionable conduct of petitioner No. 1 and also relied upon WhatsApp messages allegedly sent by the father-in-law and brother-in-law containing objectionable and humiliating remarks. It is lastly submitted that, in view of the serious allegations and sufficient material available on record, the petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed with costs. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 14. 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. 15. 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 9 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. 16. 16. 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 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 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 10 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.....” 17. The Apex Court, in Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab & Another {Cr.A. No. 4773/2024, decided on 26.11.2024} had, relying on the decision in Geeta Mehrotra (supra), Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others {(2022) 6 SCC 599}, Bhajan Lal (supra), and Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another {(2013) 10 SCC 591}, had quashed the FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 11 18. Very recently, the Apex Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayan & Others v. State of Telangana & Another {Cr.A. No. 5199 of 2024, decided on 10.12.2024}, has observed as under: “25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of 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 12 dowry during the said period or that there was any matrimonial discord. Further, the second respondent in response to the missing complaint filed by the first appellant herein on 05.10.2021 addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting for closure of the said complaint as she had stated that she had left the matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a quarrel with the appellant No.1 because of one Govindan with whom the second respondent was in contact over telephone for a period of ten days. She had also admitted that she would not repeat such acts in future. In the above conspectus of facts, we find that the allegations of the second respondent against the appellants herein are too far-fetched and are not believable. 27. xxx xxx xxx 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 13 the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. 29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the 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 14 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 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 15 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. 19. In the complaint so made, the complainant/respondent No. 2 has made only omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners, without providing full particulars such as the date and place of the alleged incidents. It is alleged that all the petitioners, including the husband, treated her with cruelty for bringing Rs.40 lakhs. There is no specific allegation against any of the petitioners; only common and general allegations have been made that they demanded Rs. 40 lakhs and subjected her to ill- treatment. 20. 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 498A/34, 323, 406 read with Section 34, 354 and 354A(1) of the IPC is made out for prosecuting the petitioners for the above- stated offences. 21. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, FIR registered in Crime No. 19/2025 at Police Station Rajadevri 16 for offences under Sections 498A/34, 323, and 354/34 IPC on 30.03.2025, charge-sheet No. 21/2025 dated 22.05.2025 filed against the petitioners for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 354, 406, and 354A/34 of the IPC, cognizance order dated 23.01.2026 and order framing charges dated 23.01.2026, whereby charges under Sections 498A, 323, 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC have been framed against petitioners No. 1, 3, and 4, charges under Sections 498A, 323, 406 read with Section 34, 354, and 354A(1) of the IPC have been framed against petitioner No. 2 and charges under Sections 498A, 323, 406 read with Section 34 and 354A(1) of the IPC have been framed against petitioner No. 5 and the consequent proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1261/2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, are hereby quashed. 22. The petition under Section 482 CrPC is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Bablu