1 CGHC010296332026 2026:CGHC:37361-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 433 of 2026 1 - Shubham Tiwari S/o Shri Ishwar Prasad Tiwari Aged About 31 Years R/o Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Presently Working At - Government Secondary School Latori, District- Sarguja (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Protection Officer, Domestic Violence Women And Child Development Department Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Smt Priya Shubham Tiwari W/o Shubham Tiwari Aged About 28 Years Presently R/o Mother Teresa Nagar, Camp-1 Road No.18 Bhilai Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRMP No. 871 of 2026 1 - Shubham Tiwari S/o Ishwar Prasad Tiwari Aged About 30 Years R/o Ashok Nagar, Near R.K. Petrol Pump, Sarkanda, P.S.- Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Ishwar Prasad Tiwari S/o Late Chhedilal Aged About 61 Years R/o Ashok Nagar, Near R.K. Petrol Pump, Sarkanda, P.S.- Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Vanmala Tiwari W/o Ishwar Prasad Tiwari Aged About 55 Years R/o Ashok Nagar, Near R.K. Petrol Pump, Sarkanda, P.S.- Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Details Of The Petitioners Are Given As Per The Second Page Of Charge Sheet) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Mahila Thana, Durg, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.08.21 11:18:39 +0530 2 2 - Smt. Priya Tiwari W/o Shubham Tiwari Aged About 28 Years R/o Mother Teresa Nagar, Camp 01, Road No. 18, Bhilai, P.S.- Chhawni, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Shri Akhtar Husain, Advocate. For State : Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt.Advocate. Respondent No.2 : Smt. Priya Tiwari, appeared in person. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 20.08.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 Since common facts and issues are involved in these two petitions, they are being heard and decided together by this common order. 2 WPCR No.433 has been filed by the petitioner-husband only against registration of Domestic Violence Case being MJC (Criminal) Case No.913 of 2026 vide order dated 22.04.2026 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, whereas, CrMP No.871 has been filed by the petitioner-Husband and his parents under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking quashment of FIR/Crime No.08/2026 registered against the petitioners at Mahila Thana, Durg, and also to quash the subsequent proceedings in Criminal Case No.RCC/3753 of 2026 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (in short, JMFC). 3 The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 16.04.2025 at Krishna Garden, Supela, Bhilai, as per Hindu rites and customs. The petitioner No. 2 & 3 (in CrMP No.871 of 2026) are father in law & mother-in-law of the complainant. It is alleged that after initially residing at her matrimonial home, she was subjected to demands for additional dowry and was physically and mentally harassed by her husband and in-laws. Upon 3 continued alleged harassment, she lodged a complaint before Mahila Thana, Durg, on 16.10.2025, wherein counseling proceedings were conducted on multiple dates but remained unsuccessful. Subsequently, an FIR was registered under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the BNS, and after investigation, charge sheet dated 27.01.2026 was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Durg, who has taken cognizance and registered Criminal Case No.RCC/3753/2026. The respondent No.2 also initated proceeding under Section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence act, 2005 against the petitioners before the JMFC, Durg on 11.02.2026, however, the JMFC, Durg, took cognizance of the matter and registered MJC Criminal Case No.913/2026 only against the petitioner-Husband. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the complainant herself left the matrimonial home without any reason as she was not interested to reside with the petitioners. She has raised allegations which are trivial in nature and the same are insufficient to support the allegation of domestic violence, harassment and cruelty for demand of dowry. The petitioner No.1/Husband has made every chance to bring his wife back, but she herself was not willing to reside with him. He would also submit that the complaint has made a false case against her husband and his family members and there is no specific allegations against them in the complaint and therefore the proceedings of domestice violence in MJC Criminal Case No.913 of 2026 and Criminal Case No. No.RCC/3753/2026 for the offence under Section 85 and 3(5) of BNS pending before JMFC, Durg, may be quashed. He would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in 4 the matters of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1, Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another2, Swapnil v. State of Madhya Pradesh3, Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another4 (Para-24), Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another5, Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others6 and Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh7. 5 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent/State, would submit that after due investigation the petitioners have been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and prima-facie material collected during investigation are sufficient to put the petitioners at trial and considering the material available on record, it cannot be held that no prima-facie case against the petitioners for standing trial is made out. He would further submit that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.,2023 extremely limited as FIR and charge- sheet cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient evidence available on record to put the accused persons to trial. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Taramani Parakh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others8 to buttress his submission that allegation of cruelty is question of fact to be 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 2 (2010) 7 SCC 667 3 (2014) 13 SCC 567 4 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 5 (2018) 10 SCC 472 6 (2022) 6 SCC 599 7 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083 8 (2015) 11 SCC 260 5 established during trial, as such, both the petitions deserves to be dismissed. 6 The respondent No.2/complainant, appearing in person, would submit that she was ready and willing to go and stay with the petitioner- husband at her matrimonial house, but they refused. She would further submit that after due investigation, the jurisdictional police has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners in which there are serious allegations against the petitioners for demand of dowry. All the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners relate to question of fact, that can be considered during the course of trial and that cannot be considered at this stage and that too in proceeding under Section 528 of B.NSS as all ingredients of the aforesaid offences are available to put the petitioners to trial, as such, it is the case where the petitions deserve 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 others9, 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 9 (1998) 5 SCC 749 6 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 others10 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, 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 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 10 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 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. 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 Industries11, Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another12 and Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar. v. State of Maharashtra and others13". v. State of Maharashtra and others13". 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 11 (2020) 4 SCC 162 12 (2020) 13 SCC 435 13 (2019) 18 SCC 191 8 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 the petition relating to quashment of FIR/charge-sheet, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that in the impugned charge-sheet, three petitioners have been charged for offences under Sections 85 and 3(5) of BNS. 13 Chapter XXA of the IPC deals with offence of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband. Section 498A of the IPC/85 of BNS defines the offence of cruelty as under:- "498A. 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 purpose 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." 14 A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to establish offence under Section 498A of the IPC, the prosecution must establish, (i) That, woman must be married: (ii) She has been subjected to cruelty or harassment and (iii) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by relative of her husband. 15 The word 'cruelty' within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC has been explained in Explanation appended to Section 498A of the IPC. It consists of two clauses namely clause (a) and clause (b). To attract 9 Section 498A of the IPC, it must be established that cruelty or harassment to the wife to coerce her or cause bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide or the harassment was to compel her to fulfill illegal demand for dowry. It is not every type of harassment or cruelty that would attract Section 498A of the IPC. Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC contemplates harassment of woman to coerce or any relation of her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. The complainant if wants to come within the ambit of Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC, she can succeed if it is proved that there was an unlawful demand by the husband or any of his relatives with respect to money or of some valuable security. 16 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priya Vrat Singh and others v. Shyam Ji Sahai14 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. 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." 14 (2008) 8 SCC 232 10 17 Similarly, in the matter of Sunder Babu and others v. State of Tamil Nadu15 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 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was quashed. 18 Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Supreme Court 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, 506 and 304-B of the IPC would not be justified as cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process. 19 In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others16 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 principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) that criminal 15 (2009) 14 SCC 244 16 (2018) 14 SCC 452 11 proceedings can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie offence is disclosed and further held that judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of oppression or harassment and the High Court should not hesitate in exercising the jurisdiction to quash the proceedings if the proceedings deserve to be quashed in line of parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case (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's case (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 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..…" 12 21 Having noticed the legal position qua quashing the FIR and charge- sheet, the question would be whether taking the contents of the FIR and charge-sheet as it is, offence under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners? 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 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 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 13 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.” 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 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 14 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.” 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 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 15 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. 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 In the complaint so made, the complainant has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioner No.2 &3 without being full particulars about date and place that the petitioner No.2 & 3 including the husband treated her with cruelty for not bringing sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. There is no specific allegation regarding petitioner No.2 & 3 except common and general allegations against her that they also have demanded dowry. 24 Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, material available on record, perusing the FIR as well as material placed in the charge sheet no specific allegations have been made and only bald and omnibus allegations have been made against the 16 petitioners No.2&3, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Section 498-A/34 IPC is made out for prosecuting the petitioner No.2-Ishwar Prasad Tiwari and petitioner No.3-Smt. Vanmala Tiwari for the above-stated offence and the prosecution against them for the offence under Section 498-A./34 IPC covered by Category 1, 3 & 7 of para-102 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) and as such, liable to be quashed. 25 As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, FIR No.08/2026 registered at Mahila Thana Durg and the proceeding of Criminal Case No.RCC/3753/2026 pending before JMFC, Durg, with respect to petitioner No.2-Ishwar Prasad Tiwari and petitioner No.3-Smt. Vanmala Tiwari for the offence under Section 498-A/34 of IPC/85 of BNS is hereby quashed. The prosecution against the petitioner No.1- Shubham Tiwari shall continue. 26 It is made clear that all the observations made in this order are for the purpose of deciding the petition filed by the petitioners hereinabove and this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter and concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending against Petitioner No.1-Shubham Tiwari strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of observations made hereinabove. 27 So far as the challenge to the registration of the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act is concerned, this Court finds no ground warranting interference in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, as the registration of application under Section 12 of the Act does not 17 amount to a finding of guilt or determination of the allegations made by the aggrieved person, but merely sets the statutory machinery in motion, and the petitioner would have full opportunity before the learned Magistrate to contest the allegations and place his defence on record; the grounds urged by the petitioner essentially relate to disputed questions of fact and the correctness or otherwise of the allegations of domestic violence, which cannot appropriately be adjudicated in the present proceedings at the threshold, particularly when the complaint discloses allegations of domestic violence and the competent Magistrate has taken cognizance in accordance with law; consequently, WPCR No.433/2026 filed by the petitioner-Shubham Tiwari is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all permissible objections and defences before the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. 28 CrMP No.871 of 2026 is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder