1 CGHC010206772026 2026:CGHC:31956-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1472 of 2026 1 - Chitesh Verma S/o Late Tribhuvan Verma Aged About 41 Years Workplace Address 134C, Chelsea Court, Walkers Road, George Town, Cayman Island- 1106, U S Territory Residents Of Village - Ghoghedabri, Police Station - Thelkadih, District - Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai (C.G.) 2 - Ajay Verma S/o Tribhuvan Verma Aged About 33 Years (Brother In Law) Residents Of Village - Ghoghedabri, Police Station - Thelkadih, District - Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Ankunwar Verma W/o Tribhuvan Verma, Aged About 60 Years (Mother In Law) Residents Of Village - Ghoghedabri, Police Station - Thelkadih, District - Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Shanta Bai W/o Ajay Verma Aged About 33 Years (Sister In Law) Residents Of Village - Ghoghedabri, Police Station - Thelkadih, District - Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Khairagarh, District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Sharda Verma W/o Chitesh Verma, D/o Late Kamlakant Verma, Aged About 35 Years Presently Resident of Indralok City, Khairagarh, District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai, CG, Permanent R/o Village - Ghoghedabri, Police Station - Thelkadih, District - Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai (C.G.) (Complainant/wife) ... Respondents ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 _________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Priyanka Rai Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27 .0 7 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1/State and Ms. Priyanka Rai Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers : “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set-aside :- (i) First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 138/2025 dated 08.05.2025, registered at Police Station Khairagarh, District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai, CG. for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 296, and 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023; (ii) The consequential charge sheet bearing No. 260/2025 dated 27.07.2025, arising out of the aforesaid FIR, filed for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 85, 296, and 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023; (iii) The order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Chief 3 Judicial Magistrate Khairagarh, District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai, Civil District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, taking cognizance of the aforementioned charge sheet, along with all consequential orders arising therefrom; iv) The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2042/2025 titled as 'State of Chhattisgarh vs. Chitesh Verma and Others, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai, Civil District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.” 3. Considering the fact that the dispute arrived at between the parties is matrimonial in nature, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court directing the petitioners to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- which shall be payable to respondent No.2 on her appearance, but, as per the report of the Mediation Centre, mediation between the parties could not be succeeded and further considering the fact that return has already been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 / complainant and further with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 4. Brief facts of the case are that marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 05.06.2015 according to Hindu rites and customs, and out of the wedlock, a daughter was born on 02.08.2017. Respondent No.2 lodged a written complaint on 05.05.2025 alleging that after marriage she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the petitioners on account of dowry demands, giving birth to a girl child, and other matrimonial disputes. She further alleged 4 that while residing with petitioner No.1 in the USA, she was subjected to ill-treatment and was later forced to leave the matrimonial home. It was also alleged that the petitioners misappropriated her stridhan articles and that petitioner No.1 had contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. On the basis of the complaint, FIR No.138/2025 dated 08.05.2025 was registered at Police Station Khairagarh for offences punishable under Sections 85, 296 and 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet on 27.07.2025, whereupon the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on 28.07.2025 and the matter is presently pending at the stage of arguments on charge. The petitioners have been granted anticipatory bail by the competent Court. Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings, the petitioners have preferred the present petition. 5. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 25.06.2026, the petitioner No.1 husband has already deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the Mediation Centre of this Court was later on paid to respondent No.2 / complainant on her appearance. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned FIR is nothing but a counterblast to the matrimonial proceedings initiated by petitioner No.1, who had filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act on 15.04.2025, whereas the respondent No.2 lodged the complaint only thereafter, resulting in 5 registration of the present FIR on 08.05.2025. It was argued that the allegations made in the complaint are omnibus, vague and general in nature, without attributing any specific overt act to the individual petitioners, and have been levelled with an oblique motive to harass the entire family. Learned counsel further submitted that the dispute is purely matrimonial in nature and has been given a criminal colour. It was also contended that petitioner No.1 is residing abroad for employment and the other petitioners have been unnecessarily implicated despite having no role in the alleged offences. It was, therefore, submitted that continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and, accordingly, the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order and all consequential criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 opposed the petition and submitted that the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is contended that the FIR discloses specific and cognizable allegations against the petitioners relating to continuous physical and mental cruelty, unlawful demands of dowry, criminal intimidation, misappropriation of stridhan articles, and harassment meted out to respondent No.2 throughout her matrimonial life and further that the petitioner has already perfomed second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage It was further submitted that the allegations are not confined to petitioner No.1 alone but also disclose the active involvement of the other petitioners, who, 6 instead of protecting respondent No.2, supported and participated in the acts of cruelty and harassment. The investigation has been completed after recording the statements of the witnesses and collecting relevant material, culminating in the filing of the charge-sheet. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has also taken cognizance of the offences, and therefore, there exists sufficient material warranting the petitioners to face trial. It is further argued that the truthfulness or otherwise of these allegations can only be determined after appreciation of evidence during trial and not in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Article 226 of the Constitution. Since the FIR and the charge-sheet disclose the commission of cognizable offences and raise disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication on evidence, this Court ought not to exercise its extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction to stifle a legitimate prosecution at the threshold. Accordingly, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. The allegations contained in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, disclose a matrimonial dispute which has been given a criminal colour. The complaint primarily contains general and omnibus allegations of cruelty, harassment and dowry demand without specifying the date, time or manner in which the alleged acts were committed by each of the petitioners. Except for broad and sweeping assertions, there 7 is no specific attribution of any overt act to any of the petitioners so as to prima facie constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged. The investigation has also culminated in filing of the charge-sheet without collecting any independent material to substantiate the allegations beyond the statements of interested witnesses. The continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to permitting the criminal process to be used as a weapon of harassment rather than for securing the ends of justice. 10. It is also an admitted position that petitioner No.1 had instituted a petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage on 15.04.2025, whereas the complaint giving rise to the impugned FIR came to be lodged thereafter on 05.05.2025. Though the filing of a divorce petition by itself cannot be a ground to discard a criminal complaint, the sequence of events assumes significance when examined in conjunction with the nature of the allegations. The FIR reflects allegations pertaining to incidents spread over several years without any contemporaneous complaint and, apart from making omnibus allegations, fails to disclose any specific material indicating the commission of cognizable offences by the petitioners. The allegations regarding the alleged second marriage of petitioner No.1 and other matrimonial grievances are matters for which independent remedies are available under law and cannot, in the facts of the present case, be permitted to sustain the impugned criminal prosecution in the absence of prima facie material constituting the offences alleged. 8 11. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1, the Honb’ble Supreme Court has held that casual reference to the family member of the husband in FIR as co- accused particularly when there is no specific allegation and complaint did not disclose their active involvement. It was held that cognizance of matter against them for offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC would not be justified as cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process. 12. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated the duty of the criminal Courts while proceeding against relatives of victim's husband and held that the Court should be careful in proceeding against distant relatives in crime pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and further held that relatives of husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations, unless specific instances of their involvement in offences are made out. 13. 13. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another3, it has been held by the Supreme Court relying upon the principle of law laid down in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others4 that criminal proceedings can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie offence is disclosed and further held that 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 9 judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of oppression or harassment and the High Court should not hesitate in exercising the jurisdiction to quash the proceedings if the proceedings deserve to be quashed in line of parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) and further held that in absence of specific allegation regarding anyone of the accused except common and general allegations against everyone, no offence under Section 498A IPC is made out and quashed the charges for offence under Section 498A of the IPC being covered by category seven as enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra) by holding as under:- “24. Coming back to the allegations in the complaint pertaining to Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the allegations against the appellants for offence under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act are general and sweeping. No specific incident dates or details of any incident has been mentioned in the complaint. The complaint having been filed after proceeding for divorce was initiated by Nayan Chopra in State of Michigan, where Vanshika participated and divorce was ultimately granted. A few months after filing of the divorce petition, the complaint has been filed in the Court of C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar with the allegations as noticed above. The sequence of the events and facts and circumstances of the case leads us to conclude that the complaint under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act have been filed as counter blast to divorce petition proceeding in State of Michigan by Nayan Chopra. 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 10 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..…” 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab & Another {Cr.A. No. 4773/2024, decided on 26.11.2024} had, relying on the decision in Geeta Mehrotra (supra), Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others {(2022) 6 SCC 599}, Bhajan Lal (supra), and Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another {(2013) 10 SCC 591}, had quashed the FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 15. Very recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayan & Others v. State of Telangana & Another {Cr.A. No. 5199 of 2024, decided on 10.12.2024}, has observed as under: “25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 26. In fact, in the instant case, the first appellant and his wife i.e. the second respondent herein resided at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where he was working in 11 Southern Railways. They were married in the year 2015 and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the second respondent gave birth to two children. Therefore, it cannot be believed that there was any harassment for dowry during the said period or that there was any matrimonial discord. Further, the second respondent in response to the missing complaint filed by the first appellant herein on 05.10.2021 addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting for closure of the said complaint as she had stated that she had left the matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a quarrel with the appellant No.1 because of one Govindan with whom the second respondent was in contact over telephone for a period of ten days. She had also admitted that she would not repeat such acts in future. In the above conspectus of facts, we find that the allegations of the second respondent against the appellants herein are too far-fetched and are not believable. 27. xxx xxx xxx 28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, 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 12 against them. 29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant- husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case. 30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows: “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.” 31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of 13 Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.” Observing the aforesaid, the Hon’ble Apex Court quashed the FIR, the charge-sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court. 16. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that allowing the criminal prosecution to continue against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. The allegations, taken at their face value, do not disclose sufficient material to justify continuation of the prosecution, and the dispute between the parties essentially remains one arising out of a strained matrimonial relationship. The criminal law cannot be permitted to be invoked as a means of settling personal 14 scores or exerting pressure in matrimonial litigation. 17. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be and is allowed. Consequently, FIR No.138/2025 dated 08.05.2025 registered at Police Station Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 296 and 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the charge-sheet arising therefrom, the order dated 28.07.2025 taking cognizance passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, and all consequential criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners are hereby quashed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra