1 2026:CGHC:25317-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 320 of 2026 1 - Smt. Gaytri Upadhaya W/o Shrikant Upadhaya Aged About 46 Years Present R/o Iris 67 Chouhan Green Valley Junwani Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh Pin Code 490020 2 - Shrikant Upadhaya S/o Late Krishna Upadhaya Aged About 46 Years Present R/o Iris 67 Chouhan Green Valley Junwani Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh Pin Code 490020 --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Protection Officer, Domestic Violence (Nava Bihan) Women And Child Development Department, District Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Reeta Devi Upadhaya W/o Late Krishna Upadhaya Aged About 58 Years R/o Room No. 545, Street No. 6/b Shanti Nagar Bhilai Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) {Cause Title Taken from Case Information System} For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 22/06/2026 1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the State/ respondents. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the 2 petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relation to the case of the petitioners from the possession of respondent's for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ/Order/Direction of the appropriate writ directing the quashing of the impugned consequential proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, initiated as per complaint. dated 23.04.2015 for the offence u/s 12 read with section 18,19,20,21,22 of the D.V. Act and Domestic Incident Report dated 09.08.2018 submitted by respondent No. 01 before learned JMFC, Durg in Case No. MJC Cri./348/2015 as well as quash any and all proceedings and actions arising there from on the ground of abuse of process of law; 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition. ” 3. The facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners are that the respondent No.2 is the mother-in-law of petitioner No.1 and the mother of petitioner No.2. The respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 12 read with Section 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the DV, Act) before the learned JMFC, Durg (for short, the learned Trial Court) against the petitioners which was registered as MJC (Crl.) No. 348/2015 and directed to send the copy of the application to the Protection Officer/Respondent No. 1 with summons. The learned trial Court proceeded against the petitioners ex-parte and vide order dated 25.09.2019, the application filed under Section 12 read with section 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the DV Act was allowed and the learned trial court directed the petitioner No.2 to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent No. 2 herein as maintenance from the date of order and the same is to be paid till 10th of every month and then the matter was 3 disposed off. 4. Mr. Sandeep Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that from bare perusal of the entire application it can be concluded that the vague and omnibus application had been filed which is also against the Sections which are detailed in the DV, Act. The respondent No. 02 had accepted the fact that the petitioner No. 2 got married with petitioner No.1 on dated 28.11.20005 through marriage officer, Durg and later on the marriage of the petitioner No.1 and 2 had been done as per rites and rituals. If the entire Domestic Incident Report (for short, the DIR) report is analyzed one can easily depict the fact that the DIR report is not as per section 19(1)(b) of the DV, Act and also it does not disclose any specific details regarding alleged act of domestic violence and it is just an abuse of law, More over the respondent No. 2 had suppressed the material fact in the application under Section 12 of the DV Act because both the petitioners after some time went to live with the parents of the petitioner No.1. Both the petitioners when came to know about the impugned order dated 25.09.2019, they filed the appeal under Section 29 of DV Act before learned Additional Session Judge (FTC), Durg and the same got registered as Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 2024. The learned Additional Session Judge (FTC), Durg passed the order on dated 16.10.2025 where by the learned Appellate Court had mentioned the contention of the respondent No.2 that the respondent had filed the application under Section 12 of the DV, Act and prayed compensation of Rs. 70,60,000/- and Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance. The appellant assailed that the order passed on 25.09.2019 is not legal and for non-service of summons for the presence of the appellant. The address of the petitioners and respondent No.2 is same which gives an apprehension that the respondent has mislead the Court by informing the postman to 4 write a note "Not to Collect the Summons", in the absence of the petitioners. The learned appellate court in the order had also made an observation the fact that the respondent No.2 had published the a public notice on 07.07.2018 evicting her elder son from all property after which her elder son is not entitled to any property of the respondent No.2 nor he is enjoying any properties of respondent. The respondent No.2 has houses and one shop in her name, money in the accounts of her in-laws, jewellery worth approximately Rs. 22 Lakhs and the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- received after the retirement of the respondent No.2 husband after his death. This shows that the respondent is not facing any kind of financial or residential problem. The respondent never made a whisper about these things in the DIR report and also in her application under Section 12 (1) of the DV, Act, which clearly shows the suppression of the fact. 5. Mr. Jha submits that it is well settled that a party who does not come before the Court of law with clean hands is not entitled to any relief. The learned appellate Court, Durg in Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 2024 order dated 16.10.2025 had made an observation in para 08 that the petitioner No.2 on dated 19.07.2015 had made a representation to the Police Station that due to family dispute the petitioner No.2 had left his home with petitioner No.1 on dated 07.05.2015 and all the belongings are left at their home and the respondent No.2 with and her younger son called some anti social elements and break the lock of the home to took away his belongings. The petitioners left the home on dated 07.05.2015 and on 19.97.2015 they filed an application before Police officials to protect their belongings left over in his home. The learned Appellate Court, Durg quashed the order passed by the learned JMFC, Durg on 25.09.2019 and remanded back the same to the learned trial court. The petitioners 5 had filed their reply in MJC Cri./348/2015 (Smt. Reeta Devi Upadhyaya Vs Smt.Gayatri Upadhyaya) on 11.02.2026 in which the petitioner No. 1 had averred that the respondent No.2 was annoyed with petitioner No.1 as the marriage did not take place as per her choice and the petitioner No. 1 married petitioner No. 1 on his own choice. The respondent No. 2 started torturing the petitioner No.1 physically and mentally on various occasions. The petitioners had also denied the averment made by respondent No.2 that she is forced to live a life like destitute/homeless person. The respondent No.2 with her daughter and younger son tried to remove the petitioner No.1 from the house. The petitioner had also filed the complaint regarding dowry torture. The petitioner No.1 had specifically mentioned in her reply the fact that the respondent No.2 being the nominee in account No. 10050100001894, UCO Bank, Vaishali Nagar (belongs to fatherin-in-law) took the money of Rs.20 lakhs and also took all the Gold Jewellery having value of Rs. 22 Lakhs which was kept in the locker linked with the same account No. 10050100001894 and closed the account on dated 20.01.2011. The above mentioned facts states that the respondent No.2 is having enough cash and gold to live peacefully and even she did not disclosed the said fact before the learned trial Court. The respondent No. 2 is living in a house situated at Shanti Nagar, Supela Bhilai, Dist- Durg having total area of 3000 sq.ft and even she took the company quarter in street No. 37 sector 07 from which an amount of Rs. 10,000/-comes on every month. The petitioner No.1 had also mentioned the fact in her reply that there is a three storied commercial building situated at Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) from where the respondent No. 2 is generating the income on every month but the same had not been mentioned into the affidavit submitted by the respondent No. 02 which shows the suppression of 6 important material facts because in the prayer clause the maintenance amount had been prayed from petitioners before the learned JMFC, Durg. 6. Mr. Jha further submits that the the petitioner No.2 had filed an application under Section 109, 110 of the Chhattisgarh land Revenue Code, 1959 before the learned Additional Tehsildar, Durg on 06.10.2017 for land having Khasra No. 2582/56, P.H.No. 19, Total land area 0.030 Hectare. The said application was moved by the petitioner No.2 because the demise of the land owner Krishna Upadhyaya on 26.02.2010. The petitioner No.2 had mentioned the legal heirs of the title owner so that the equal rights should be given to each legal heir. The petitioner No. 1 and 2 had made a complaint to Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai on 11.10.2023 regarding the addition of name of the petitioner No. 2 in Temporary License which was given by the Bhilai Steel Plant (BSP) to Late Krishna Upadhyaya. The Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai had given the information to all the parties including petitioners that because after taking license and when the matter was under the possession of Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai, still the parties had not given the application to issues the Patta to the petitioners and respondent and the matter is sub- judice with the Civil Court, hence the decision of the Civil Court will be binding on all parties and the Nagar Palika Nigam will do the needful after getting the final order of the Civil Court. The petitioners had sent the legal notice to the respondent No.2 and his younger son on dated 22.08.2024 where by the petitioners legal counsel had given the proper information regarding that after demise of the grandfather of petitioner No.2 the petitioner No.2 is also having the rights on all such properties as per Hindu Succession Act. The father, named as Krishna Upadhyaya died in the month of February, 2010 and the grand father of the petitioner 7 No.2 also died in the month of December 2010, thereafter the petitioner No.2 is also entitled to get the share of the property but the respondent No. 2 and his younger son had transferred their name in all such property and the name of the petitioner No.2 was not mentioned anywhere. The counsel of the petitioners had averred all the details in the legal notice regarding the property and will, and also averred the conduct of the respondent and his son falls under the purview of criminal conspiracy. The respondent No.2 and his younger son had replied the legal notice dated 22.08.2024 sent by the petitioners. The reply of the legal notice was sent on 04.09.2024. 7. Mr. Jha next submits that the petitioner No. 1 filed a complaint against the respondent No. 2 and the younger son of respondent No. 2, Nitin Upadhyay for the offence under Sections 195 (A) of the IPC and under Section 5 Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Act, 2005 (for short, the TPN Act). The incident took place in between 07.01.2015 to 26.05.2016 at a place where the respondent No.2 is residing currently. The prosecution story is that because the petitioner No.1 had lodged the FIR No. 9/2015 for the offence under Section 498 A of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and in order to give the false evidence, the respondent No.2 and her younger son named as Nitin Upadhyaya pressurize the petitioner No.1 and on the same time they had stated that the petitioner No.1 Tonhi and tortured physically and mentally. The matter was came up for hearing before JMFC, Durg and the same got registered as RCC/8673/2015, after witnessing all the evidence and perused the material available on record the learned JMFC, Durg, convicted the respondent No.2’s younger son for a period of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs.5000/-. The learned JMFC, Durg also convicted the respondent No.2 under 8 Section 5 of the Act of 2005 and ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The respondent No.2 and his younger son had filed the criminal appeal No. 185/2024 before Additional Session Judge, Durg in which the learned Additional Session Judge had passed the order dated 12.07.2024 and acquitted the respondent No.2 and her younger son on the ground of benefit of doubt and set aside the order passed by the learned JMFC, Durg in RCC/8673/2016. The petitioner No.1 had also filed a complaint against the respondent No.2 and his younger son Nitin Upadhyaya and Ku. Shalini Pande for the offence under Section 498 (A) of the IPC and also against the 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On the basis of complaint, the P.S. Supela had lodged the FIR No. 09/2015 on 07.01.2015. On the basis of FIR No. 09/2015 the P.S. Supela had filed the charge sheet before learned JMFC, Durg and the same got registered as Criminal Case No.949/2015, however, the learned trial Court acquitted them of the charges. The petitioner No. 1, on 24.02.2015 made a complaint against the younger son/ Nitin Upadhyaya of the respondent No.2 that the brother-in-law had cut the water connection on 24.02.2015 at around 6:00 a.m. in the morning due to which the petitioner No.1 faced the acute problem, when the petitioner No.1 asked to switch on the water connection then he tortured and assaulted the petitioner No. 1 and tore her clothes. The brother-in-law had also locked the main door and also threatened that the kids will be kidnapped if the petitioner No. 1 is not going to understand the direction given by him. The petitioner No.1 lodged a complaint in which the police officials had given the memo under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C on 24.02.2025 stating it to be non-cognizable. Against the same, the petitioner No. 1 wrote a complaint letter to the Superintendent of Police 9 (S.P.), Durg and complained that the personal belongings of the petitioner No.1 and her child is kept in the House No. 545 Shanti nagar, Supela Bhilai Nagar and whenever she go to take those belongings then the respondent No.2 and Nitin Upadhyaya tortures her and also uses abusive languages against her. She also told that the vaccination card of the child of the petitioner No. 1 is kept in the said house but they are not allowing her to take the same and whenever she go they used to tortured physically and mentally inspite of knowing that the case is subjudice with the learned JMFC, Durg under the TPN Act, 2005. The petitioner No.1 prayed to give police protection so that she can go and take the necessary items which is urgently required. The petitioner No. 01 also lodged a complaint against the younger son of the respondent No.2 on dated 24.12.2025 regarding burglary and taking the precious Jewellery of the petitioner No.1 which was kept in her room situated at Room No. 545 Shanti Nagar, When the petitioner moved from that place with her friend on 23.12.2025, then they saw that Nitin Upadhyaya broke the lock and stole the precious Jewellery of the petitioner No.1 then immediately the petitioner No.1 wrote a complaint letter to Superintendent of Police, Durg. The petitioner filed an RTI application on 17.05.2023 and sought some information regarding House No. 2/A and 2/B Street No 37/A, Sector 07 Bhilai (C.G.). The Assistant Public Information officer (APIO) on 12.06.2023 informed that the said houses were allotted to the respondent No. 2 and as per information of the Company, in house No. 2-A/37-A/7 Smt. Anita Thakur is residing and in 2-B/37-A/7, Smt. Bhanu is residing. It is pertinent to mention that the husband of respondent No.2 was working with the HSCL, Bhilai and in lieu of same, these quarters were allotted to the respondent No.2 from which the respondent No.2 is getting an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per 10 month but the same had not been declared in the entire application under Section 12 of the DV Act and also the same had not been disclosed in the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 before the learned JMFC, Durg. The petitioner No.1 had made a complaint to the Collector, Durg also on 10.07.2023 in which it was averred that the respondent No.2 with the officers of the Nagar Palika Nigam (Property tax Department) without the legal documents had transferred the name of respondent No.2 and Nitin Upadhyaya in property situated at Supela having I.D. No. 1050800185. The respondent No. 2 in her reply stated that the elder son/Petitioner No. 2 had performed love marriage with petitioner No.1 and residing at different place with his wife. The younger son is living with respondent No.2 and he is taking care of her. Even in her reply she stated that she made a publication in on dated 07.07.2018 by which she disinherited from the movable and immovable property because the petitioner No.2 is having no continued relationship with respondent No.2 and because of this publication, the petitioner No.2 is not having any rights to get any property of the respondent No.2. The learned Collector had directed the Nagar Palika Nigam to submit report, then the Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai, District Durg recorded such statement and sent the report to the Collector Durg and prayed to dispose of the said complaint. The petitioner No. 2 made a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Durg upon which he directed the Police Chowki Vaishali Nagar, P.S. Supela to enquire in this matter. The matter was investigated and a report dated 04.05.2019 was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Durg in which the police officials had taken the statement of the respondent No. 2. The dispute was held to be a family dispute The police official had made a report that there is a family dispute in between the complainant and respondent No.2 and the matter 11 pertaining to the Sharing is subjudice with the learned court, Durg and a memo under Section 155 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 66/2019 was prepared but the petitioner No. 1 had denied to accept the same. 8. Mr. Jha also submits that the petitioner No. 1 had also lodged an FIR No. 302/2015 against the respondent No.2 and one Anita Devi for the offence under Section 294, 506 (Part II), 323 and 341 of the IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused and the learned JMFC, Durg, registered the case as Case No. 4644/2015 and acquitted the accused of all other charges except 323 IPC and sentenced them to fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 500/- each and in default, to undergo one month imprisonment. The petitioner No.1 on 23.02.2017 filed an application under Section 12 of the DV, Act against the respondent No.2, Nitin Upadhyaya, Shalini Pandey and Anita Pandey registered as MJC (Crl.) No. 89/2017 in which the learned JMFC, Durg, vide order dated 11.04.2023 directed respondent No.2 and Nitin Upadhyaya not to conduct any action which falls under the purview of Domestic Violence and also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner had also filed an RTI application and sought certain information regarding the account 10050100001894 which was opened by the grandfather of petitioner No.2 in the year 1986 with UCO Bank, Tri Junction Branch. The account /c was opened in the name of Mr.Ramdeo Upadhyaya, Smt. Kunti Upadhyaya and Mr. Krishna Upadhyaya and after the death of Mr. Krishna Upadhyaya the name of respondent No.2 was added and thereafter the locker linked with account No. 10050100001894 was surrendered on 20.01.2011 by the respondent No.2. The petitioner No. 2 had filed a Civil Suit A No. 301/2017, claiming share in ancestral property missed before the learned Civil Judge Class II, Durg (C.G.) on 05.12.2017 with respect to 12 certain ancestral properties claiming his share . The petitioner No. 2 filed a declaration suit and also prayed for injunction, however, the said suit came to be dismissed against which an appeal has been filed before this Court which is pending consideration. 9. Mr. Jha submits that the petition filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners under the DV Act is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The relationship between the petitioner No. 2 and the respondent No. 2, who are son and mother, became strained as the petitioner No.2 married with petitioner No. 1 on his own choice and the respondent No. 2 was not agreeable for the said marriage. Further, the respondent No. 2 has concealed the material facts that she is self reliant and can sustain herself as she is having more than sufficient funds, properties etc. and when a party does not come to the Court of law with clean hands, the said party is not entitled to any relief and as such, the proceedings against the petitioners be quashed. 10. On the other hand, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that the contesting party in this case would be the respondent No. 2 who has filed the MJC Crl. No. 348/2015. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and materials available on record. 12. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if 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, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in 13 exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case does not fall within any of the categories illustratively enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025) so as to warrant exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing the criminal proceedings at the threshold. The allegations levelled against the petitioners cannot be characterized as so absurd, inherently improbable, or manifestly frivolous that no prudent person could reasonably conclude that they disclose a prima facie case for proceeding further. 14. The petition under the DV Act was filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner on 23.04.2015 in which the petitioners were proceeded exparte, and vide order dated 25.09.2019, the said petition was allowed and the petitioners were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month to the respondent No. 2. However, later on, in an appeal filed by the petitioners, being Appeal No. 212/2024, vide order dated 16.10.2025, the MJC was restored to its original number and the parties were directed to appear on 24.11.2025. Thereafter, the matter has been listed on various dates and lastly, the matter was listed on 30.05.2026 and the next date given for hearing was 17.06.2026. The said matter has been pending since 2015 and even after lapse of more than 11 years, the same could not be concluded. From perusal of the materials placed before us, it transpires that both the parties have made various complaints against each other both on civil and criminal side before 14 various forums. Hence, it would not be proper to quash the proceedings which is pending against the petitioners for the last 11 years. 15. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this petition and as such, the same stands dismssed. However, since the trial of MJC(Crl.) No. 348/2015 is pending for the last 11 years, we deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court concerned to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, within a period of 6 months, if there is no other legal impediment. It is expected that the trial Court concerned shall not grant any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties so as to conclude the trial within the time as aforesaid. 16. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance, forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.06.23 19:38:20 +0530