CGHC010249592026 2026:CGHC:30604-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1745 of 2026 1 - Indrajeet Pradhan S/o Late Shri Navin Pradhan, Aged About 40 Years R/o Paterapali P.S. Saraipali, Dist -Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Purushottam Pradhan S/o Late Shri Navin Pradhan Aged About 36 Years R/o Paterapali P.S. Saraipali, Dist -Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Sarojini Pradhan Wd /o Late Shri Navin Pradhan Aged About 60 Years R/o Paterapali P.S. Saraipali, Dist -Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through -S.H.O. P.S. Sankra, Dist -Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Jagyaseni Pradhan, W/o Shri Indrajeet Pradhan Aged About 38 Years R/o -Vill - Dhodharkasa, Sankra, Dist -Mahasamund (C.G.) ---- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 20/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.07.21 19:45:47 +0530 2 appearing for the respondent No.1/State. 2. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of First Information Report bearing Crime No. 32/2026 registered on 17.02.2026 at Police Station Sankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 377 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge- sheet No. 57/2026 dated 01.05.2026, the order dated 03.06.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithaura, District Mahasamund taking cognizance against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 1027/2026 and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom. 3. Earlier, by order dated 08.07.2026, this Court, considering that the dispute between the parties was matrimonial in nature, referred the matter to the Mediation Centre of this Court with a direction to petitioner No.1 to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Mediation Centre for payment to respondent No.2 on her appearance. In compliance with the said order, petitioner No.1 deposited the aforesaid amount and both the parties appeared before the Mediation Centre. However, despite the efforts made during mediation, no amicable settlement could be arrived at between the parties. Consequently, the mediation proceedings have failed and the present petition is being considered on its own merits. 4. The present CRMP has been filed by the petitioners seeking for the following relief:- 3 “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. 32/2026 registered at P.S. Sankra, Dist- Mahasamund (C.G.) registered on 17.02.2026, for the offence punishable U/s 498-A of I.P.C., charge sheet No. 57/2026 dated 01.05.2026 filed for the offence punishable U/s 498-A, 377 & 34 of I.P.C, the order of taking cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Pithaura, Dist- Mahasamund (C.G.) on 03.06.2026 and the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1027/2026 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Pithaura, Dist.- Mahasamund (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No. 32/2026 registered at Police Station Sankra, District Mahasamund for the offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 377 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.2/complainant lodged a written complaint on 17.02.2026 alleging that her marriage with petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 24.03.2022 according to Hindu rites and customs. It was alleged that she resided in her matrimonial home only for about 10 to 15 days, during which period petitioner No.1, her husband, used to lock the house from outside while leaving for work, abused her, subjected her to physical and mental cruelty on account of demand of dowry and also committed unnatural sexual intercourse with her against her will. It was further alleged that petitioner Nos.2 and 3, namely her mother-in-law and brother-in-law, also subjected her to physical and mental cruelty in connection with the 4 demand of dowry. She further alleged that when she fell ill on 15.03.2023 and intended to return to her parental home, petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 retained her bag containing ornaments. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR bearing Crime No. 32/2026 was registered on 17.02.2026 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet No. 57/2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 377 and 34 of the IPC on 01.05.2026. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithaura, District Mahasamund took cognizance on 03.06.2026 and registered Criminal Case No. 1027/2026 against the petitioners, which proceedings, along with the FIR, charge-sheet and order taking cognizance, are under challenge in the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings are nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law. He would submit that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 24.03.2022 and the complainant herself has admitted in her written complaint that she resided in her matrimonial home only for about 10 to 15 days. Despite such admission, she has levelled sweeping and omnibus allegations of physical and mental cruelty, demand of dowry and commission of unnatural sexual intercourse without mentioning any specific date, time or place of the alleged incidents. It is submitted that the allegations are vague, inherently improbable and do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. He would further submit that petitioner No.2, who is the mother-in-law, and petitioner No.3, who is 5 the brother-in-law of the complainant, have been falsely implicated merely because of their relationship with petitioner No.1. No specific overt act has been attributed to either of them except making general and omnibus allegations. It is further submitted that petitioner No.3 is serving as a Jail Security Guard at Sub-Jail, Sarangarh and, as admitted by the complainant herself, petitioner No.2 was residing with him, which itself belies the allegation that both of them actively participated in the alleged acts at the matrimonial home. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that the allegation regarding commission of offence under Section 377 of the IPC is wholly bald and unsupported by any medical evidence or other corroborative material. The complaint is completely silent with regard to the date, time and circumstances of the alleged incident and the investigating agency has also failed to collect any independent material substantiating such serious allegation. Therefore, even if the allegations contained in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, no prima facie offence under Section 377 of the IPC is made out against petitioner No.1. He would further submit that the allegation regarding retention of the complainant's ornaments is also unsupported by any complaint, recovery or documentary material. The complainant admittedly left the matrimonial home on 15.03.2023, whereas after nearly three years she first approached the Family Counselling Centre and thereafter lodged the present FIR on 17.02.2026, which clearly demonstrates that the criminal proceedings have been initiated as an afterthought only to harass the petitioners and to exert pressure in a matrimonial dispute. 6 8. Learned counsel would further submit that petitioner No.1 is a practising Advocate at Tahsil Court, Saraipali having an established professional career, petitioner No.2 is a sixty-year-old lady suffering from old-age ailments and petitioner No.3 is a Government servant. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against them in the absence of any specific allegations and prima facie material would amount to abuse of the process of law. It is, therefore, submitted that the FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and would submit that the allegations levelled in the written complaint, statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation and the material collected by the investigating agency disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 498-A, 377 and 34 of the IPC. After conducting a detailed investigation, the police has filed the charge- sheet and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has taken cognizance of the offences. It is submitted that there is sufficient prima facie material available on record to proceed against the petitioners and the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations can only be adjudicated upon after appreciation of evidence during trial. It is further submitted that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Court is not expected to meticulously appreciate the evidence or adjudicate upon the disputed questions of fact. The defence sought to be raised by the 7 petitioners involves factual issues, which can only be examined during the course of trial after recording evidence. Therefore, no case is made out for quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance or the consequential criminal proceedings, and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the case. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has authoritatively laid down the principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings. It has been held that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is intended to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of 8 justice. In paragraph 102 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court illustratively enumerated the categories of cases in which such extraordinary jurisdiction may be exercised. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:- "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 9 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 accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 10 103. 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." 14. The principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) has consistently been followed and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of subsequent decisions including 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, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2021) 19 SCC 401, and Haji Iqbal @ Bala v. State of U.P. and others, Criminal Appeal No. 2343 of 2023, decided on 08.08.2023. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the High Court is required to exercise such power sparingly, with great caution and only to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. At the same time, where the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence or continuation of the 11 criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. 15. Having noticed the scope of interference by this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a petition seeking quashment of the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite evident that the petitioners have been prosecuted pursuant to FIR bearing Crime No. 32/2026 dated 17.02.2026 registered at Police Station Sankra, District Mahasamund, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 377 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed Charge-sheet No. 57/2026 dated 01.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 377 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereupon the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithaura, District Mahasamund took cognizance of the said offences vide order dated 03.06.2026 and registered Criminal Case No. 1027/2026 against the petitioners, which proceedings are under challenge in the present petition. 16. The provisions relating to cruelty by husband or his relatives, as applicable to the present case, are contained in Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, which defines the offence of cruelty as under: "498-A. 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 12 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— (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." 17. A careful reading of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to establish an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must establish— (i) that the complainant is the legally wedded wife of the accused; (ii) that she has been subjected to "cruelty" within the meaning of the Explanation appended to Section 498-A of the IPC; and (iii) that such cruelty or harassment has been inflicted by the husband or by a relative of the husband and that the same is either of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit 13 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 any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security, or was on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 18. The expression "cruelty" occurring in Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code has been explained in the Explanation appended to the said provision. The Explanation comprises two distinct limbs, namely clause (a) and clause (b). In order to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC, it must be established that the conduct of the husband or his relatives amounted to wilful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical, or that the woman was subjected to harassment with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security, or on account of failure to meet such demand. It is well settled that every matrimonial discord, ordinary wear and tear of married life or general allegations of ill-treatment would not constitute "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. To bring a case within the ambit of clause (b) of the Explanation, there must be specific allegations disclosing an unlawful demand for dowry or valuable security coupled with harassment directly connected with such demand. Likewise, for attracting clause (a), the allegations must prima facie disclose wilful conduct of such gravity as is likely to drive the 14 woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health. Mere bald, omnibus or vague allegations, unsupported by particulars, would not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A IPC. 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priya Vrat Singh and others v. Shyam Ji Sahai, (2008) 8 SCC 232, considered the effect of unexplained delay in lodging the complaint coupled with the absence of specific allegations against the relatives of the husband in a prosecution under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an inordinate and unexplained delay in setting the criminal law into motion is a relevant circumstance while considering the continuance of criminal proceedings and further observed that where no specific role has been attributed to the relatives of the husband, their prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law. 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. 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 15 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." 20. Similarly, in the matter of Sunder Babu and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 14 SCC 244, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the complaint coupled with the absence of specific allegations against the accused persons. Holding that the case fell within Category (7) of paragraph 102 of the decision rendered in Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and, accordingly, quashed the prosecution for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 21. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, 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 in the commission of the alleged offence, would not justify continuation of criminal proceedings against them. It was further held that where the complaint contains only vague, omnibus and general allegations against the relatives of the husband without attributing any specific overt act, permitting the prosecution to continue against such relatives would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the 16 Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the relatives of the husband for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, holding that mere implication on account of relationship with the husband, without any specific material, cannot be sustained in law. 22. 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, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that while dealing with criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes, the Courts are required to exercise greater caution before proceeding against the relatives of the husband. It was held that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against distant relatives in cases relating to matrimonial disputes and dowry-related offences and that the relatives of the husband should not be roped in merely on the basis of vague, omnibus and general allegations. Unless the complaint discloses specific instances of their active involvement constituting the alleged offences, continuation of criminal proceedings against such relatives would amount to abuse of the process of law. 23. Recently, in the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2019) 15 SCC 357, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra), reiterated that criminal proceedings can be permitted to continue only where the complaint and the material collected during investigation disclose the commission of a prima facie offence. It was further held that the judicial 17 process is a solemn proceeding and cannot be permitted to be used as an instrument of oppression or harassment, and where the allegations contained in the complaint are vague, omnibus and do not disclose the specific role of the individual accused, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. Their Lordships further held that in the absence of specific allegations against the individual accused persons and where only general and sweeping allegations are levelled against all the family members of the husband, continuation of criminal proceedings for the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 would amount to abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings by holding the case to be covered by Category (7) of the principles enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra), 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 18 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..…" 24. 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 allegations contained in the FIR, the statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, and the material collected by the investigating agency at their face value, a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 377 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners so as to justify continuation of the criminal proceedings, or whether the present case falls within the well-recognized parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing the impugned 19 FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance and all consequential criminal proceedings. 25. 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 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:- 20 “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 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 21 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.” 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 22 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 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 23 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.” 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 24 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 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 25 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. 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." 26 26. 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 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 27 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..… 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. 28 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 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." 27. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it transpires from the FIR that respondent No.2/complainant has alleged that her marriage with petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 24.03.2022 and that she resided in her matrimonial home only for about 10 to 15 days. It has been alleged that during the said period petitioner No.1 used to lock the house from outside while leaving for work, abused her, subjected her to physical and mental cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry and also committed unnatural sexual intercourse against her will. It has further been alleged that petitioner No.2 (mother-in-law) and petitioner No.3 (brother-in-law) also subjected her to physical and mental cruelty on account of demand of dowry and that while she was leaving for her 29 parental home on 15.03.2023, petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 retained her bag containing ornaments. 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 or place with regard to the alleged acts of cruelty, demand of dowry or commission of the offence under Section 377 of the IPC. No distinct overt act has been attributed to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 except making general allegations against them by virtue of their relationship with petitioner No.1. On the contrary, the complainant herself has stated that petitioner No.3 is serving as a Jail Security Guard at Sub-Jail, Sarangarh and that petitioner No.2 was residing with him, which renders their active participation in the alleged incidents at the matrimonial home highly doubtful. It is also borne out from the record that the complainant admittedly left the matrimonial home on 15.03.2023, whereas after nearly three years she first approached the Family Counselling Centre and thereafter lodged the impugned FIR on 17.02.2026. No plausible explanation has been offered for such inordinate delay. Though the proceedings of the Family Counselling Centre indicate that efforts were made for amicable settlement and the parties had discussed return of stridhan and payment of a lump sum amount towards permanent settlement, no settlement could ultimately be arrived at. More importantly, even if the allegations contained in the FIR and the charge-sheet are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under 30 Sections 498-A, 377 and 34 of the IPC against petitioner Nos.2 and 3, nor do they disclose any specific material constituting the offence under Section 377 IPC against petitioner No.1 except a bald and omnibus allegation. The criminal prosecution, therefore, appears to have been initiated by roping in the entire family of petitioner No.1 without any specific material against the individual petitioners. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The present case, therefore, squarely falls within Categories (1), (3), (5) 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, K. Subba Rao, Priya Vrat Singh, Sunder Babu, Rashmi Chopra and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam (supra) also fortify the view that where the allegations in a matrimonial dispute are vague, omnibus, unsupported by specific particulars and the relatives of the husband have been implicated without attributing any distinct role to them, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court deserves to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law. 28. 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 continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 32/2026 dated 17.02.2026 registered at Police Station Sankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 31 377 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the Charge-sheet No. 57/2026 dated 01.05.2026, the order dated 03.06.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithaura, District Mahasamund taking cognizance in Criminal Case No. 1027/2026, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners are hereby quashed. 29. It is, however, made clear that since no amicable settlement could be arrived at between the parties before the Mediation Centre, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited by petitioner No.1 pursuant to the order dated 08.07.2026 passed by this Court shall be released in favour of respondent No.2/complainant, in terms of the said order, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in any other civil or matrimonial proceedings. It is further clarified that payment and receipt of the aforesaid amount shall not be construed as a full and final settlement of the disputes between the parties nor shall it prejudice the rights of either party in any proceedings pending or to be instituted before the competent Court, which shall be decided independently on their own merits in accordance with law. 30. Accordingly, the present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned First Information Report bearing Crime No. 32/2026 dated 17.02.2026, the Charge-sheet No. 57/2026 dated 01.05.2026, the order taking cognizance dated 03.06.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithaura, District Mahasamund in Criminal Case No. 1027/2026, and all consequential 32 criminal proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners stand quashed. 31. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved