2026:CGHC:27383-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1310 of 2026 1 - Jainendra Lahare Son Of Shri Tekchand Lahare Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Surya Vihar, Ravi Patanwar Colony, Tifra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Sarojani Lahare Wife Of Tekchand Lahare Aged About 59 Years Resident Of Surya Vihar, Ravi Patanwar Colony, Tifra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Tekchand Lahare Son Of Chandulal Lahare Aged About 68 Years Resident Of Surya Vihar, Ravi Patanwar Colony, Tifra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Ravi Lahare, Son Of Tekchand Lahare, Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Surya Vihar, Ravi Patanwar Colony, Tifra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Sunita Tondar, Wife Of Shatruhan Tonder Aged About 37 Years Resident Of Setganga, P.S. Fastarpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 6 - Shatruhan Tonder (Wrongly Written Satruhan Todar) Son Of Anujram Tonder Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Setganga, P.S. Fastarpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). 2 - Sandhya Lahare, Wife Of Jainendra Lahare, Presently Residing At Bazar VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.07.06 18:45:44 +0530 2 Chowk, Dinesh Store Gali, Near Electric Tower, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy A.G. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Manju Naik, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03/07/2026 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent No.1/State and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2/complainant. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed, that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:- 1. allow the petition and kindly be pleased to quash the FIR No. 41/2026 registered under section 85, 296, 351(2), 115(2), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.); 3 2. and quash the entire charge sheet relating to Crime No. 41/2026 (wrongly written 41/2025 in the final report), registered under section 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) and also quash the cognizance order dated 17.03.2026 taken against the petitioners by the concerned Trial Court in relating to Criminal Case No. 3158/2026; 3. and further quash the criminal proceedings of the case bearing Criminal Case No. 3158/2026, arising out of Crime No. 41/2026, registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice.” 3. The present case arises out of a matrimonial dispute between Petitioner No.1 (husband) and Respondent No.2/complainant (wife), whose marriage was solemnized in the month of December, 2020 according to Hindu rites and customs. As per the prosecution case, after a few days of the marriage, the respondent No.2 was allegedly subjected to physical and mental cruelty by Petitioner No.1 (husband), Petitioner No.2 (mother-in-law), Petitioner No.3 (father-in-law), Petitioner No.4 (brother-in-law/devar), Petitioner No.5 (sister-in-law/ nanad) and Petitioner No.6 (brother-in-law/nandoi), who allegedly harassed her by demanding dowry, calling her a witch, and subjecting her to continuous mental and physical harassment, even during her pregnancy. It has further been alleged that despite complaints made to 4 the Mahila Thana and Police Station Sirgitti, as well as intervention through social meetings, the dispute could not be resolved and the petitioner No.1 also threatened the complainant by stating that, being a Patwari, he would divorce and defame her. On the basis of the written complaint lodged by Respondent No.2, FIR bearing Crime No. 41/2026 dated 19.01.2026 came to be registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 296, 351(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet dated 10.03.2026 (though the crime number has been mistakenly mentioned therein as Crime No. 41/2025), alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, whereupon the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur took cognizance vide order dated 17.03.2026 and registered Criminal Case No. 3158/2026, which FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order and all consequential criminal proceedings are under challenge in the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order and all consequential criminal proceedings are nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law, having been initiated on the basis of false, frivolous and concocted allegations with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners and to wreak vengeance upon the entire family of petitioner No.1. It is contended that the respondent No.2, right from the date of marriage, was insisting that 5 petitioner No.1 should live separately from his parents and family members and, when such demand was not accepted, she voluntarily started residing at her parental house and thereafter lodged the present false complaint as a counterblast. Learned counsel would submit that even prior to the registration of the present FIR, petitioner No.1 had lodged a complaint before the Mahila Thana, Bilaspur on 10.04.2021 regarding the conduct of the respondent No.2 and her family members, and thereafter petitioner No.2 also submitted written complaints dated 27.05.2024 and 16.11.2025 to the concerned authorities, which clearly demonstrate that the petitioners themselves were aggrieved and had approached the authorities much before the impugned FIR came to be lodged. It is further submitted that counselling proceedings were also conducted between the parties, wherein the respondent No.2 had initially refused to accompany petitioner No.1 to the matrimonial home and only on 18.02.2022 agreed to resume the matrimonial relationship. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner No.1, who is serving as a Patwari, even caused a legal notice dated 18.09.2024 to be issued requesting the respondent No.2 to resume cohabitation so that he could peacefully discharge his official duties, which itself negatives any intention on his part to subject the respondent No.2 to cruelty. It is also contended that petitioner No.4 is employed at Manendragarh and petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are residing separately at District Mungeli, yet they have been unnecessarily implicated merely because of their relationship with petitioner No.1, without any specific role or overt act being attributed to them. According to the learned counsel, the 6 allegations contained in the FIR are vague, general and omnibus in nature, bereft of any specific particulars regarding the alleged acts of cruelty or demand of dowry by the individual petitioners and, therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. ******* He would place reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Swapnil v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 567, Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 (Para 24), Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2018) 10 SCC 472, Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 and Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083 to contend that where the allegations against the relatives of the husband are vague, omnibus and devoid of any specific overt act, and the criminal proceedings appear to have been instituted only to implicate the entire family, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, ought to quash such proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that the impugned FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings have been initiated on the basis of a written complaint lodged by respondent No.2 disclosing commission of cognizable offences relating to cruelty, demand of dowry, criminal 7 intimidation and other allied offences. It is submitted that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the complainant and other witnesses under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, collected relevant material and, upon finding sufficient prima facie evidence against the petitioners, filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is further submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, after due application of mind to the police report and the material collected during investigation, has rightly taken cognizance of the offences vide order dated 17.03.2026. Learned State counsel would further contend that the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners and, therefore, the correctness or otherwise of such allegations can only be adjudicated upon during the course of trial. It is submitted that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact, as the same fall within the domain of the trial Court. It is, therefore, contended that the present petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant would submit that the impugned FIR clearly discloses the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the 8 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as the complainant has specifically alleged that soon after the marriage, all the petitioners started subjecting her to continuous physical and mental cruelty on account of unlawful demand of dowry. It is submitted that the complainant was repeatedly harassed and humiliated by the petitioners, who used to call her a witch, mentally torture her, and subject her to physical cruelty, which continued even during her pregnancy. Learned counsel would further submit that despite several efforts made by the complainant to save the matrimonial relationship, including approaching the Mahila Thana, making complaints through the emergency service (112), and convening social meetings, the conduct of the petitioners did not improve. It is further alleged that petitioner No.1 also threatened the complainant by stating that, being a Patwari, he would divorce her and defame her. Learned counsel submits that the allegations made in the FIR are neither vague nor omnibus, but disclose specific instances of continuous cruelty and harassment committed by the petitioners, which have been duly corroborated during the course of investigation, culminating in the filing of the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, upon due consideration of the police report and the material collected during investigation, has rightly taken cognizance of the offences vide order dated 17.03.2026. Learned counsel would contend that the defence raised by the petitioners regarding prior complaints, counselling proceedings, separate residence of some of the accused persons, and other disputed factual aspects are matters of evidence which can only 9 be adjudicated during the course of trial and cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is, therefore, submitted that the present petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. 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 of BNSS. 9. 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 528 of BNSS 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. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 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, 10 their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC/528 of 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 police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order 11 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. (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 12 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." 11. 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 Industries, (2020) 4 SCC 162, Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2020) 13 SCC 435 and Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar. v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2019) 18 SCC 191. The Supreme Court in 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 circumspection and "that too in the rarest of rare cases" as indicated in paragraph 103 therein of the report. 12. Having noticed the scope of interference by this Court in a petition seeking quashment of an FIR, charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite 13 evident that the petitioners have been prosecuted pursuant to FIR bearing Crime No. 41/2026 dated 19.01.2026 registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 296, 351(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet dated 10.03.2026 (though the crime number has inadvertently been mentioned therein as Crime No. 41/2025) for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, whereupon the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur took cognizance of the said offences vide order dated 17.03.2026 and registered Criminal Case No. 3158/2026, which proceedings are under challenge in the present petition. 13. The provisions relating to cruelty by husband or his relatives are now governed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 85 of the B.N.S. defines the offence of cruelty as under: “85. 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 purposes of this section, ‘cruelty’ means— 14 (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 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.” 14. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to establish an offence under Section 85 of the B.N.S., the prosecution must establish— (i) that the woman is legally married; (ii) that she has been subjected to cruelty or harassment; and (iii) that such cruelty or harassment has been inflicted by the husband or by a relative of the husband, and the same is either of such a nature as is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, or is with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security. 15. The word “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 85 of the B.N.S. has been explained in the Explanation appended to the said section. It consists of two clauses, namely clause (a) and clause (b). To attract Section 85 of the B.N.S., it must be established that the cruelty or 15 harassment caused to the wife is of such a nature as is likely to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical, or that such harassment was with a view to coercing her or her relatives to fulfil any unlawful demand. It is not every type of harassment or cruelty that would attract the provisions of Section 85 of the B.N.S. Explanation (b) to Section 85 specifically contemplates harassment of a woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security. Therefore, in order to bring the case within the ambit of clause (b), it must be shown that there was a specific unlawful demand made by the husband or his relatives and that the harassment was directly connected with such demand. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priya Vrat Singh and others v. Shyam Ji Sahai, (2008) 8 SCC 232 considered the issue of delay in lodging the complaint as well as role that has been ascribed to the accused therein and quashed the complaint holding the delay of two years in lodging FIR to be fatal and further held that no role has been ascribed to the petitioner/accused therein. It was observed as under:- "8. Further it is pointed out that the allegation of alleged demand for dowry was made for the first time in December, 1994. In the complaint filed, the allegation is that the dowry torture was made some times in 1992. It has not been explained as to why for more than two years no action was taken. 16 9. Further, it appears that in the complaint petition. apart from the husband, the mother of the husband, the subsequently married wife, husband's mother's sister, husband's brother in law and Sunita's father were impleaded as party. No role has been specifically ascribed to anybody except the husband and that too of a dowry demand in February 1993 when the complaint was filed on 6.12.1994 i.e. nearly after 22 months. It is to be noted that in spite of service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of Respondent No.1." 17. Similarly, in the matter of Sunder Babu and others v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 14 SCC 244 delay in filing complaint against accused therein was taken note of by their Lordships of the Supreme Court holding the case to be covered by Category Seven of para 102 highlighted in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), the prosecution for offence under Section 85 of BNS and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was quashed. 18. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a mere casual reference to the family members of the husband in the FIR as co-accused, in the absence of any specific allegation disclosing their active involvement, would not justify continuation of criminal proceedings against them. It was further held that where the complaint contains only vague and omnibus allegations against the relatives of the husband, taking cognizance against them would amount to abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, 17 cognizance for offences relating to cruelty and allied allegations, now corresponding to Section 85 and other relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, would not be justified. 19. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others (2018) 14 SCC 452 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. 20. Recently, in the matter of Rashmi Chopra (supra), it has been held by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relying upon the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra), that criminal proceedings can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie offence is disclosed. It was further held that the judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be permitted to be used as an instrument of oppression or harassment, and the High Court should not hesitate in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings where the case falls within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra). Their Lordships further held that in the absence of specific allegations against individual accused persons and where only general and omnibus allegations are made against all the accused, no offence relating to cruelty would be 18 made out. Accordingly, the charges for the offence analogous to cruelty by husband or relatives, now covered under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, were quashed, holding the case to be covered under Category 7 as enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra), by observing 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. 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 19 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..…" 21. Having noticed the legal position with regard to quashment of an FIR, charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings, the question that arises for consideration is whether, taking the contents of the FIR, the statements recorded during investigation and the charge-sheet as they stand, a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is made out against the petitioners so as to justify the continuation of the criminal proceedings, or whether the present case falls within the well-recognized parameters warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order and all consequential proceedings. 22. In the matter of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2022(6) SCC 599, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated as under:- "10. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the appellants and respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made 20 against the appellants in-laws are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed.? 11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498-A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498-A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P. , has observed:- “14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498-A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious 21 concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement." 13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, it was also observed; “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non- bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand- fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” 22 14.Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, it has also been observed:- “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences 23 are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. 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 of husband's close relations 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 complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 24 15. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP, it was observed:- “21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: "12..... “there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, 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 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 reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the 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 25 the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.” The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.” 16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, it was also observed that:- "6......The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498-A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 26 18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that "all accused harassed herm mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy". Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein, i.e., none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by10 each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution." 23. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of “Charul Shukla V. State of UP and others” reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 476” that:- “22. Furthermore, with respect to the allegations against the sister-in -law regarding the incitement of the complainant's husband in relation to the alleged extra-marital affair, the prosecution has 27 failed to provide any specific detail and has not been able to elaborate upon the nature of the relationship or how those accusations purportedly affected complainant's relationship with her husband. It is apposite to note that upon the perusal of the records of the case, nothing material has been put forth to advance or substantiate the said allegations. Time and again, this Court has observed that merely stating certain vague and omnibus allegations without any cogent material evidence to support the same should not become a fillip to jump-start the criminal machinery of the State. At this juncture, we find it appropriate to quote the observations of this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 which is extracted as under: "27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experiencee 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..… 28 xxx 30. 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 Page 22 of 26 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 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. 31. 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 29 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." 24. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it transpires from the FIR that respondent No.2/complainant has alleged that soon after her marriage with petitioner No.1 solemnized in December, 2020, petitioner No.1 (husband), petitioner No.2 (mother-in-law), petitioner No.3 (father-in- law), petitioner No.4 (brother-in-law/devar), petitioner No.5 (sister-in- law/nanad) and petitioner No.6 (brother-in-law/nandoi) started subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty by demanding dowry, calling her a witch and harassing her even during her pregnancy. It has further been alleged that petitioner No.1 threatened to divorce and defame her by taking advantage of his position as a Patwari. However, a careful scrutiny of the FIR, the statements recorded during investigation and the material accompanying the charge-sheet would reveal that the allegations are wholly general, vague and omnibus in nature. Neither the FIR nor the statements of the witnesses disclose any specific date, time, place or distinct overt act attributable to any of the individual petitioners. The allegations have been levelled collectively 30 against all the family members without specifying the precise role played by each of them. It is also borne out from the record that petitioner No.4 is serving at Manendragarh, whereas petitioner Nos.5 and 6 have been residing separately at District Mungeli, and no material has been collected during investigation indicating their active participation in the alleged offences. It further appears that much prior to the registration of the impugned FIR, petitioner No.1 had lodged a complaint before the Mahila Thana on 10.04.2021 and petitioner No.2 had also submitted written complaints dated 27.05.2024 and 16.11.2025. The counselling proceedings between the parties further reveal that efforts were made for reconciliation and respondent No.2 had initially declined to accompany petitioner No.1 to the matrimonial home and subsequently agreed to do so. Petitioner No.1 had also issued a legal notice dated 18.09.2024 requesting respondent No.2 to resume cohabitation. Though these documents may ultimately constitute the defence of the petitioners, they nevertheless indicate that the matrimonial dispute had been continuing for a considerable period before the impugned FIR came to be registered. More importantly, even if the allegations contained in the FIR and the charge-sheet are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the necessary particulars constituting the offences alleged against any of the petitioners, as the accusations remain vague and bereft of specific instances of cruelty or unlawful demand of dowry. The criminal prosecution appears to have been launched by roping in the entire family of petitioner No.1 without any specific material against the individual petitioners. In such 31 circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. The present case, therefore, squarely falls within Categories (1), (3) and (7) illustratively enumerated in paragraph 102 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra). The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra, Preeti Gupta, Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam, Swapnil and Abhishek (supra) also lend support to the proposition that where allegations in a matrimonial dispute are vague, omnibus and do not disclose any specific role of the accused persons, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court deserves to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law. 25. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the FIR dated 19.01.2026 registered as Crime No.41/2026 at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 296, 351(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the charge-sheet dated 10.03.2026 (though the crime number has inadvertently been mentioned therein as Crime No.41/2025), the cognizance order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No.3158/2026, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom against all the petitioners are hereby quashed. 32 26. 32 26. It is, however, made clear that the proceedings instituted by respondent No.2 under Section 125(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (or the corresponding statutory provision, as applicable) shall be decided independently on their own merits and strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in the present order. It is further clarified that any amount paid to or received by respondent No.2 pursuant to any interim arrangement or any other proceedings shall not be taken into consideration while adjudicating her entitlement in the proceedings under Section 125(4), and the competent Court shall decide the said proceedings independently on the basis of the evidence available before it. 27. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved