1 2026:CGHC:26860-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1290 of 2026 1 - Neeraj Kapilesh S/o. Shri Ramesh Kapilesh Aged About 36 Years R/o. Plot No. 508, Sada Colony, Jamanipali Darri, P.S. Darri, Present R/o. B/1, Cseb Colony, Darri Dist.- Korba (C.G.) 2 - Ramesh Kapilesh S/o. Shri Jhaduram Kapilesh Aged About 64 Years R/o. Plot No. 508, Sada Colony, Jamanipali Darri, P.S. Darri, Present R/o. B/1, Cseb Colony, Darri Dist.- Korba (C.G.) 3 - Romi Kapilesh W/o. Shri Ramesh Kapilesh Aged About 57 Years R/o. Plot No. 508, Sada Colony, Jamanipali Darri, P.S. Darri, Present R/o. B/1, Cseb Colony, Darri Dist.- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. City Kotwali Korba Dist,- Korba (C.G.) 2 - Tanya Arora W/o. Shri Neeraj Kapilesh Aged About 31 Years D/o. Late Shri Narendra Pal Arora, R/o. Gauri Shankar Temple, Old Bus Stand Korba P.S. City Kotwali Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.07.03 10:51:45 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri HV Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Sourabh Sahu, PL For Respondent No.2 : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate with Miss Juhi Jaiswal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , CJ & Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order On Board Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ 01/07/2026 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition and prayed for the following reliefs:- “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.130/2024 registered for the offence punishable U/s 498-A, 34 of I.P.C. at P.S. City Kotwali Korba on 29.02.2024, Charge Sheet No.302/2024 filed for the offence punishable U/s 498-A, 34 of I.P.C. on 31.08.2024, the Cognizance order dated 03.02.2025, and consequential proceeding of Criminal Case No.253/2025 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Korba, Dist – Korba (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 2. Case of the prosecution is that complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a written complaint on 29.2.2024 stating that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.1 – Neeraj Kapilesh on 7.12.2022 as per Hindu rituals and customs at Harimangalam, Korba. The marriage function was organized by respondent No.2, according to 3 their financial capacity despite the sudden death of her father on 12.2.2022. After the marriage, the petitioners had called the relatives of respondent No.2 and demanded jewellery, furniture and clothes, which the petitioners could not satisfy. After few days of the marriage, the petitioners started harassing respondent No.2 for demand of money. Thereafter the relatives of respondent No.2 had given golden Kada to petitioner No.1. On 7.6.2023, the petitioners again started threatening respondent No.2 because of which she left her in-laws’ house apprehending danger to her life. Thereafter social meeting was convened in which respondent No.2 tried to settle the matter, however, the petitioners avoided the said settlement. As such, respondent No.2 had filed the instant complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered with P.S. City Kotwali bearing FIR No.130/2024 for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 34 of the IPC on 29.2.2024. Thereafter charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC, on the basis of which the trial Court has registered the Criminal Case No.253/2025 and had taken cognizance against the petitioners on 3.2.2025, which is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba. 3. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law and petitioner No.3 is the mother-in-law. It is stated 4 that respondent No.2 has lived with petitioner No.1 only for 6 months at her matrimonial home. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent No.2 has got prepared false documents to implicate them. Respondent No.2 has lodged the written complaint after 8 months of the incident on the basis of which the subject FIR was registered against the petitioners without considering the fact that no complaint of demand of dowry was made before marriage and the FIR has been lodged after the marriage. The medical certificate was fabricated to show the cruelty towards her and the criminal case has been filed due to mental illness of respondent No.2. It is stated that there was a matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 as they are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 7.12.2022 and hence, the present proceedings against the petitioner No.1 who is husband and petitioners No.2 and 3 who are in-laws of respondent No.2 be quashed 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that from perusal of the FIR and the material collected by the Investigating Agency, it appears that specific allegations of cruelty, harassment and demand of dowry have been levelled against all the petitioners. The allegations are neither vague nor omnibus in nature and disclose the commission of cognizable offence. It is further submitted that on 12.5.2026, the 5 matter was referred to the Mediation Center and the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Centre on 25.5.2026 in order to explore the possibility of amicable settlement of the dispute through mediation. In compliance of the said order, both the parties appeared before the Mediator and participated in the mediation proceeding. However, the mediation has failed. In view of above, it would be futile exercise for sending the matter again before the Mediation Center. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 7. 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. 8. 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 6 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. 9. 9. 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 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 pertaining to Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the allegations against the appellants for offence under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act are general and sweeping. No specific incident dates or details of any incident has been mentioned in the complaint. The complaint having been filed after proceeding for divorce was initiated by Nayan Chopra in State of Michigan, where Vanshika participated and divorce was ultimately granted. A few months after filing of the divorce petition, the complaint has been filed in the Court of C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar with the allegations as noticed above. The sequence of the events and facts and circumstances of the case leads us to conclude that the complaint under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act have been filed as counter blast to divorce petition proceeding in State of Michigan by Nayan Chopra. 25. There being no specific allegation regarding any one of the applicants except common general allegation against everyone i.e. “they started harassing the daughter of the applicant demanding additional dowry of one crore” and the fact that all relatives of the husband, namely, father, mother, brother, mother’s sister and husband of mother’s sister have been roped in clearly indicate that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed with a view to harass the applicants.....” 10. 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 8 & 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. 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. 9 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 by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, 10 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. 11 Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows: “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.” 31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives who had been living in 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 12 required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.” Observing the aforesaid, the Apex Court quashed the FIR, the charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court. 12. In the complaint so made, the complainant has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners without being full particulars about date and place that all the petitioners including the husband treated her with cruelty for not bringing sufficient dowry. There is no specific allegation regarding anyone of the petitioners except common and general allegations against all the petitioners that they have demanded more money. 13. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, material available on record, perusing the FIR in which no specific 13 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 Section 498A/34 of the IPC is made out for prosecuting petitioner No.2-Ramesh Kapilesh and petitioner No.3-Romi Kapilesh for the above-stated offences. 14. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, Criminal Case No253/2025 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba arising out of Crime No.130/2024 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Korba, for offence under Sections 498A/34 of the IPC is hereby quashed to the extent of petitioner No.2-Ramesh Kapilesh and petitioner No.3-Romi Kapilesh. Prosecution against her husband petitioner No.1-Neeraj Kapilesh shall continue. Concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending against petitioner No.1-Neeraj Kapilesh strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of these observations made hereinabove. 15. The present Petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Barve