1 2026:CGHC:23984-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2756 of 2025 1 - Jitendra Nande S/o Naveen Nande Aged About 42 Years R/o Borideepa Chowk, Pusaur, P.S. Pusaur Distt - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Shakuntala Nande W/o Naveen Nande Aged About 68 Years R/o Borideepa Chowk, Pusaur, P.S. Pusaur Distt - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Rajendra Kumar Nande S/o Naveen Nande Aged About 44 Years R/o Borideepa Chowk, Pusaur, P.S. Pusaur Distt - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In-Charge, Police Station Mahila Thana Raipur, Distt - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Roshni Tripathi Nande W/o Jitendra Nande Aged About 37 Years R/o Radhaswami Nagar, Bhatagoan, Purani Basti, Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.06.17 11:09:21 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State. 2. From the perusal of the office note, it transpires that notice issued to respondent No.2 has been duly served through her brother, namely, Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 either in person or through counsel to oppose the present petition. In the circumstances, service upon respondent No.2 is held to be sufficient. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and consequently quash the FIR No. 56/2023 registered with the Respondent No.1 on 06.04.2024, also the charge sheet No. 55/2023, dated 13.06.2023 for the alleged offence Under Sections 498A & 406 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (ANNEXURE P-1)Colly Also, the consequential Criminal Case registered vide order dated 22.06.2023 whereby the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the impugned chargesheet and thereby has registered the impugned criminal case as Criminal Case No. 10316/2023 which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 against the Petitioners pursuant to the aforesaid charge sheet, may also be quashed. (ANNEXURE P- 2)Colly That the impugned charges framed by the learned Trail court dated 22.03.2024 against the petitioners for commission of an offence U/s 498A/34 and U/s 406/34 respectively. (ANNEXURE P-3).” 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage between the accused/petitioner No.1 and the complainant/respondent No.2 was solemnized on 22.04.2009 according to Hindu rites and customs, and out of the said wedlock two daughters were born. It is alleged that after the birth of the daughters, the behaviour of the accused persons towards the complainant changed and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of not giving birth to a male child. The complainant further alleged that she was not treated with proper care and affection, was subjected to demands for money by the accused persons, and that accused No.1, under the influence of alcohol, used to ill-treat and threaten her. According to the prosecution, owing to such harassment, the complainant left the matrimonial home on 24.12.2021 and started residing with her parents. It is further alleged that despite assurances extended by the accused persons, the disputes persisted and certain monetary transactions also took place between the parties. On the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant before the Women Police Station, Raipur, counselling proceedings were undertaken but remained unsuccessful, whereafter FIR bearing Crime No.56/2023 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 498- 4 A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet No.55/2023 dated 13.06.2023 was filed against the accused persons for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and the learned trial Court subsequently framed charges under Sections 498-A/34 and 406/34 IPC vide order dated 22.03.2024, leading to the commencement of the criminal proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR as well as the consequential charge-sheet do not disclose the commission of any offence under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC even if the allegations contained therein are accepted in their entirety. It is contended that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 22.04.2009 and out of the wedlock two daughters were born in the years 2011 and 2019 respectively. The allegations levelled in the complaint are vague, omnibus and devoid of any specific particulars regarding the date, time or manner of the alleged acts of cruelty or dowry demand. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.2 had voluntarily left the matrimonial home as her father was suffering from chronic kidney disease and she had gone to her parental house to look after him, which fact is reflected from the material collected during investigation itself. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is essentially matrimonial in nature arising out of personal incompatibility between the husband and wife and that during counselling proceedings conducted before the Family Counselling Centre, no material indicative of any specific act constituting cruelty or criminal breach of trust was 5 found. According to learned counsel, the complaint merely contains general allegations that after the birth of two daughters the attitude of the petitioners changed and that there were demands for money, however, no specific incident has been attributed to any of the petitioners. It is argued that even the allegation regarding entrustment or misappropriation of any property, which is a sine qua non for attracting the offence under Section 406 IPC, is conspicuously absent from the complaint and the charge-sheet. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent No.2, instead of resolving the marital discord, has falsely implicated not only the husband but also the other family members by making sweeping and bald allegations without disclosing any overt act attributable to them. It is therefore contended that continuation of the criminal proceedings on the basis of such vague and generalized accusations would amount to abuse of the process of law and, accordingly, the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that despite attempts made for reconciliation through mediation as directed by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2025, the process failed. The petitioners, in compliance with the directions of this Court, have already paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 during the course of mediation proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly states that an act to constitute offence, the allegation should demonstrate the intention and 6 act of the present petitioners towards the complainant, as the petitioners have never done any such act which falls under definition of Section 498A/34 of the IPC and even if entire case of the prosecution would be taken in its own face value than also the ingredients of Section 498A/34 of the IPC would not made out against the petitioners. He further states that no specific act of the petitioners have been attributed in the FIR and the petitioners have been implicated in crime in question only on the basis of vague, general and omnibus type statement of the complainant/wife with intent to harass the petitioners, therefore, allowing the continuation of criminal case against them would amount to abuse of process of law and thus, the impugned FIR, charge-sheet as well as criminal proceedings pending before the concerned trial Court deserves to be quashed. He also submits that petitioners No.2 and 3 have also been roped in the crime by alleging absolute vague allegation, which is no manner constitutes any offence under Section 498A/34 of the IPC. 8. 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 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC 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. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered 7 their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. 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 abuse of judicial process. 11. 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. 12. 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 8 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 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. 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 9 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..…” 13. 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 & Another {(2013) 10 SCC 591}, had quashed the FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 14. 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. 10 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 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 11 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 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 12 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 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. 13 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. 15. 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 IPC against the petitioners. 16. The allegations made against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 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 and 406 IPC. The settled legal position is that general allegations, without supporting particulars, cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution. 17. Further, the conduct of the complainant/respondent No.2 during the pendency of matrimonial disputes shows her lack of intent to pursue the allegations seriously. It is also pertinent to note that despite service of notice in the present proceedings, respondent No.2 has chosen not to appear before this Court and has not controverted the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Though such non-appearance by itself may not be decisive, the same assumes significance when examined in conjunction with the nature of allegations and the material 14 available on record. 18. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, it is not expected to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence. However, where the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any offence or where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court, interference is not only permissible but warranted to secure the ends of justice. 19. In the present case, the allegations against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are wholly vague and general in nature and no specific role has been attributed to them. Even insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, the allegations are devoid of material particulars and do not prima facie satisfy the ingredients of cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-A IPC or criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC. The dispute appears to have arisen out of matrimonial discord between the parties and the criminal machinery has been set in motion on the basis of sweeping and generalized allegations. 20. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra (supra), K. Subba Rao (supra), Rashmi Chopra (supra), Payal Sharma (supra) and Dara Lakshmi Narayan (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that allowing the criminal prosecution against the petitioners to continue would amount to abuse of the process of law. 15 21. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Consequently, FIR bearing Crime No.56/2023 registered at Mahila Thana, Raipur for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the consequential Charge-sheet No.55/2023 dated 13.06.2023 filed for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the order taking cognizance in Criminal Case No.10316/2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, and the order dated 22.03.2024 framing charges against the petitioners are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet