CGHC010505332025 2026:CGHC:34134-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3649 of 2025 1 - Ravindra @ Pintu Jaiswal S/o Bhagwat Jaiswal Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Chhapora, Chowki Chhapora Police Station Malkharoda, District- Sakti (C.G.) 2 - Mahendra Jaiswal @ Raja S/o Bhagwat Jaiswal Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Chhapora, Chowki Chhapora Police Station Malkharoda, District- Sakti (C.G.) 3 - Bhagwat Prasad Jaiswal S/o Resham Lal Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Chhapora, Chowki Chhapora Police Station Malkharoda, District- Sakti (C.G.) 4 - Kirtan Prasad Jaiswal S/o Ramayan Lal Jaiswal Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Chhapora, Chowki Chhapora Police Station Malkharoda, District- Sakti (C.G.) 5 - Janki Jaiswal W/o Bhagwat Jaiswal Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Chhapora, Chowki Chhapora Police Station Malkharoda, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Chowki Chhapora Police Station Malkharoda, District- Sakti (C.G.) 2 - Xyz (Description Of The Complainant Is In The Closed Envelope Along With The Petition ) (Complainant) ... Respondents (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade, Advocate VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.06 10:57:20 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1/State and Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: 1. Allow the petition and kindly be pleased to quash the FIR No. 126/2025 registered u/s 498A, 323/34 of IPC at P.S. Malkharoda, Distt. Sakti (C.G.) 2. Quash the entire charge-sheet relating to Crime no. 126/2025 registered u/s 498A, 323/34, 377, 354 of IPC and also quash the cognizance order dated 23.09.2025 taken against the petitioners by the concerned trial court in relating to the Criminal Case No. 849/2025. 3. Any other order, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3 3. The present case arises out of a matrimonial dispute between Petitioner No.1 (husband) and Respondent No.2/complainant (wife), whose marriage was solemnized on 03.05.2022 according to Hindu rites and customs. As per the prosecution case, soon after the marriage, the respondent No.2 was allegedly subjected to physical and mental cruelty by Petitioner No.1 (husband), Petitioner No.2 (brother- in-law/devar), Petitioner No.3 (father-in-law), Petitioner No.4 (relative/in-law) and Petitioner No.5 (mother-in-law), who allegedly harassed her by demanding a motorcycle and cash of ₹50,000/- as dowry. It has further been alleged that Petitioner No.1 committed unnatural sexual intercourse with the complainant, Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 attempted to outrage her modesty, and all the petitioners assaulted her and even attempted to administer poison with an intention to cause her death. Although the parties had earlier approached the Family Settlement Centre and the dispute was temporarily resolved, the complainant alleged that the harassment resumed, compelling her to lodge a fresh written complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR bearing Crime No.126/2025 came to be registered at Police Station Malkharoda, District Sakti, initially for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and, during the course of investigation, offences under Sections 377 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code were also added. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge- sheet alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 323/34, 377 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, whereupon the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malkharoda took cognizance 4 vide order dated 23.09.2025 and registered Criminal Case No.849/2025, which charge-sheet, cognizance order and all consequential criminal proceedings are under challenge in the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned charge- sheet, cognizance order and all consequential criminal proceedings are nothing but an abuse of the process of law, having been initiated on the basis of false and concocted allegations with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners and the entire family of petitioner No.1. It is contended that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 03.05.2022 and, though certain matrimonial disputes had arisen between the parties, the same were amicably resolved before the Family Settlement Centre, where the respondent No.2 herself expressed her willingness to reside with petitioner No.1 and categorically stated that she did not wish to pursue any action against him. Learned counsel would submit that despite the earlier settlement, the respondent No.2 subsequently lodged the present complaint on 21.05.2025 by making exaggerated and false allegations against all the family members. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 wanted petitioner No.1 to reside separately from his parents, but when he refused to leave the joint family, the present criminal case was instituted only to exert pressure upon him. Learned counsel further submits that there is no medical evidence whatsoever to substantiate the allegation of commission of an offence under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and that petitioner Nos.2 to 5 5 have been roped in merely because of their relationship with petitioner No.1, although no specific overt act has been attributed to them. It is also contended that petitioner Nos.3 and 5 are elderly parents of petitioner No.1, while the other relatives have no connection with the alleged incident, yet they have been unnecessarily implicated on the basis of vague, omnibus and general allegations. According to the learned counsel, the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences and, therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. ******* He would place reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741; Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667; Swapnil v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 567; Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 (Para 24); Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2018) 10 SCC 472; Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599; and Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, to contend that where the allegations against the relatives of the husband are vague, omnibus and devoid of any specific overt act, and the criminal proceedings appear to have been instituted only to implicate the entire family, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, ought to quash such proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law. 6 5. Learned State counsel would submit that the impugned FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings have been initiated on the basis of a written complaint lodged by respondent No.2 disclosing commission of cognizable offences relating to cruelty, demand of dowry, physical assault, outraging of modesty and unnatural sexual intercourse. It is submitted that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, collected the relevant material and, upon finding sufficient prima facie evidence against the petitioners, filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323/34, 377 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malkharoda, after due application of mind to the police report and the material collected during investigation, has rightly taken cognizance of the offences vide order dated 23.09.2025. Learned State counsel would further contend that the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners and, therefore, the correctness or otherwise of such allegations can only be adjudicated upon during the course of trial. It is submitted that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact, as the same fall within the domain of the trial Court. It is further contended that the petitioners have failed to bring their case within the well-settled parameters governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal 7 proceedings and that the pleas raised by them constitute matters of defence to be established during trial. It is, therefore, submitted that the present petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant would submit that the impugned FIR clearly discloses the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 498-A, 323/34, 377 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, as the complainant has specifically alleged that soon after the marriage, the petitioners started subjecting her to continuous physical and mental cruelty on account of unlawful demand of a motorcycle and ₹50,000/- as dowry. It is submitted that the complainant was repeatedly harassed and assaulted by the petitioners and that petitioner No.1 forcibly subjected her to unnatural sexual intercourse, while petitioner Nos.2 and 3 attempted to outrage her modesty. Learned counsel would further submit that although the complainant had earlier approached the Family Settlement Centre in the year 2023 and, on the assurance of the petitioners, resumed cohabitation with petitioner No.1, the petitioners again subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, compelling her to lodge the present complaint. It is further alleged that the petitioners also attempted to administer poison to the complainant with an intention to cause her death. Learned counsel submits that the allegations made in the FIR are neither vague nor omnibus, but disclose specific instances of cruelty, dowry demand, physical assault and sexual offences, which have been duly corroborated during the course of investigation, culminating in the filing of the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malkharoda, upon due consideration of the police report and the material collected during investigation, has rightly taken cognizance of the offences vide order dated 23.09.2025. Learned counsel would contend that the defence raised by the petitioners regarding the earlier settlement before the Family Settlement Centre, absence of medical evidence, alleged false implication and other disputed factual aspects are matters requiring appreciation of evidence and can only be adjudicated during the course of trial. It is, therefore, submitted that the present petition does not fall within the parameters for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. At the outset, it would be appropriate to consider the scope of interference in charge-sheet filed by the police against accused in extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS. 9. In the matter of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998) 5 SCC 749 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the accused can approach the High Court either under Section 528 of BNSS or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down 9 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. 10 (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 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. 11 (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 Industries, (2020) 4 SCC 162, Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2020) 13 SCC 435 and Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar. v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2019) 18 SCC 191. The Supreme Court in Google India Private Limited (supra), explained the scope of dictum of Bhajan Lal's case (supra) that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and "that too in the rarest of rare cases" as indicated in paragraph 103 therein of the report. 12 12. Having noticed the scope of interference by this Court in a petition seeking quashment of an FIR, charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite evident that the petitioners have been prosecuted pursuant to FIR bearing Crime No.126/2025 registered at Police Station Malkharoda, District Sakti, initially for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, offences under Sections 377 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code were also found to be attracted and accordingly incorporated in the case. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323/34, 377 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, whereupon the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malkharoda, took cognizance of the said offences vide order dated 23.09.2025 and registered Criminal Case No.849/2025, which charge-sheet, cognizance order and the consequential criminal proceedings are under challenge in the present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 13. The provisions relating to cruelty by husband or his relatives are now governed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 85 of the B.N.S. defines the offence of cruelty as under: “85. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty — Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term 13 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.” 14. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to establish an offence under Section 85 of the B.N.S., the prosecution must establish— (i) that the woman is legally married; (ii) that she has been subjected to cruelty or harassment; and (iii) that such cruelty or harassment has been inflicted by the husband or by a relative of the husband, and the same is either of such a nature as is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, or is with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security. 15. The word “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 85 of the B.N.S. has been explained in the Explanation appended to the said section. It 14 consists of two clauses, namely clause (a) and clause (b). To attract Section 85 of the B.N.S., it must be established that the cruelty or harassment caused to the wife is of such a nature as is likely to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical, or that such harassment was with a view to coercing her or her relatives to fulfil any unlawful demand. It is not every type of harassment or cruelty that would attract the provisions of Section 85 of the B.N.S. Explanation (b) to Section 85 specifically contemplates harassment of a woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security. Therefore, in order to bring the case within the ambit of clause (b), it must be shown that there was a specific unlawful demand made by the husband or his relatives and that the harassment was directly connected with such demand. 16. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a mere casual reference to the family members of the husband as co-accused, in the absence of any specific allegation disclosing their active involvement, would not justify continuation of criminal proceedings against them. It was further held that where the complaint contains only vague, general and omnibus allegations against the relatives of the husband, without attributing any distinct role or overt act to them, permitting the criminal prosecution to continue would amount to abuse of the process of law. The aforesaid principle is required to be kept in view while examining whether the allegations made against the relatives of petitioner No.1 in the present 15 case disclose the commission of any prima facie offence warranting their prosecution. 17. In 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 delineated the duty of the criminal Courts while proceeding against the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes and held that the Courts should exercise due caution before permitting prosecution of such relatives on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations. It was further held that distant relatives should not be mechanically roped into criminal proceedings merely because of their relationship with the husband unless the complaint discloses specific allegations and instances indicating their active involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. The said principle equally governs the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 while considering the prayer for quashing criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes. 18. Recently, in Rashmi Chopra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while relying upon the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra), reiterated that although the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is to be exercised sparingly, the Court would be justified in quashing criminal proceedings where the allegations made in the complaint or the material collected during investigation fail to disclose the commission of a prima facie offence or where continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law. Their 16 Lordships further observed that where only general and omnibus allegations are levelled against the relatives of the husband, without attributing any specific role or overt act to them, continuation of criminal proceedings may not be warranted. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are reproduced hereinbelow:- "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, 17 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..…" 19. Having noticed the legal position with regard to quashment of an FIR, charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings, the question that arises for consideration is whether, taking the contents of the FIR, the statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded during investigation and the charge-sheet as they stand, a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323/34, 377 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners so as to justify the continuation of the criminal proceedings, or whether the present case falls within the well-recognized parameters warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing the impugned charge-sheet, cognizance order and all consequential criminal proceedings. 20. In the matter of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam (supra), 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.? 18 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 19 earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement." 13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, it was also observed; “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non- bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand- fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” 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 20 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. 21 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 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 22 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.” 23 16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, it was also observed that:- "6......The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498-A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 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 24 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." 21. 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 25 without any cogent material evidence to support the same should not become a fillip to jump-start the criminal machinery of the State. At this juncture, we find it appropriate to quote the observations of this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 which is extracted as under: "27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experiencee that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members..… 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 26 Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. 31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not 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 22. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it transpires from the FIR that respondent No.2/complainant has alleged that after her marriage with petitioner No.1 solemnized on 03.05.2022, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the petitioners on account of unlawful demand of a motorcycle and cash of ₹50,000/- as dowry. It has further been alleged that petitioner No.1 committed unnatural sexual intercourse with the complainant, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 attempted to outrage her modesty, and the petitioners assaulted her and even attempted to administer poison with an intention to cause her death. However, a careful scrutiny of the FIR, the statements recorded during investigation and the material accompanying the charge-sheet would reveal that, except making general and omnibus allegations against all the petitioners, no specific overt act, distinct role or particular incident has been attributed to petitioner Nos.2 to 5 so as to prima facie disclose their active involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. The allegations against the relatives of petitioner No.1 are omnibus in nature and appear to have been levelled merely because of their relationship with the husband. Although the complainant had earlier approached the Family Settlement Centre and thereafter resumed cohabitation with petitioner No.1, the subsequent complaint has resulted in the entire family being arrayed as accused without there being sufficient material indicating the individual role of each of them. At this stage, while this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence, it is nevertheless required to examine whether the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected during investigation disclose the essential ingredients of the 28 offences alleged. Having examined the record in that limited perspective, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings, particularly against petitioner Nos.2 to 5, would amount to abuse of the process of law. The present case, therefore, falls within the parameters illustratively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), particularly Categories (1), (3) and (7), warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 23. As a fallout and consequence of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that permitting the criminal prosecution to continue against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law and would not serve the ends of justice. The allegations contained in the FIR, even when read together with the statements recorded during investigation and the material accompanying the charge-sheet, do not disclose sufficient prima facie material justifying continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Consequently, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The FIR bearing Crime No.126/2025 registered at Police Station Malkharoda, District Sakti, the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323/34, 377 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, the cognizance order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malkharoda, in Criminal Case No.849/2025, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners are hereby quashed. 29 24. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of any other civil or criminal proceedings, if any, pending between the parties, which shall be decided independently in accordance with law on their own merits and on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. 25. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is accordingly allowed. 26. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved