1 CGHC010036912025 2026:CGHC:37327-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 338 of 2025 1 - Firdos Ahmad S/o Late Abdul Talib Aged About 42 Years R/o Nehru Nagar, Chandani Chowk Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ). 2 - Nushrat Parveen W/o Jamlee Muhammad Qureshi Aged About 44 Years R/o Bhilai 32 Acres, Housing Board, District- Durg ( C.G. ). 3 - Ishrat Pareveen W/o Mohd. Shakeel Aged About 39 Years R/o Chaurasia Colony, Santoshi Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G.). 4 - Smt. Kafiya Begum W/o Late Abdul Talib Aged About 70 Years R/o Nehru Nagar, Chandani Chowk Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G.). (died and deleted) 5 - Mohd. Afzal S/o Late Abdul Talib Aged About 51 Years R/o Gokul Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Mahila Thana Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ). 2 - Nahid Parveen W/o Firdos Ahmad Aged About 33 Years R/o Shafi Villa, Imli Khadan, Chaurasia Colony Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A. and Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.08.20 14:25:46 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Kamlesh Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr. Navin Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “i. kindly allow the petition and; ii. Quash the FIR no. 145/2022 dated 04.08.2022 registered at PS Mahila Thana Raipur against the Petitioners for the offence under section 498-A and 34 of IPC (Annexure P1), and; iii. Quash the Chargesheet filed against the Petitioners, bearing no. 174/2022 for the offence under section 498-A and 34 of IPC (Annexure P2), and; iv. Quash the Cognizance order dated 22.12.2022 for the offence under section 498-A and 34 of IPC and subsequent proceedings/order sheets in criminal case no. 18360/22 pending against the Petitioners, before JMFC Raipur (Annexure P3). v. Any other relief which this Hon'ble deems fit in light of the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be granted.” 3 3. The petitioners, who are the husband, married sisters-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of respondent No.2/complainant, have challenged FIR No.145/2022 registered at Mahila Thana, Raipur on 04.08.2022 for offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC, along with the consequential charge-sheet and cognizance order. The allegation against the petitioners is primarily that they subjected the complainant to matrimonial harassment and cruelty. The petitioners contend that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are married and residing separately with their respective families, petitioner No.4, aged about 70 years, was also residing separately with her other son and family, and petitioner No.5 was residing separately with his wife and children, and therefore none of them had any regular involvement in the matrimonial affairs of the complainant. It is further contended that the complainant had earlier executed a Kaboolnama dated 08.11.2021 before the Sakhi Centre, in the presence of her mother, acknowledging that she was residing separately with her husband and had not been subjected to harassment by the petitioners. Despite the aforesaid circumstances, FIR was registered and, after investigation, charge-sheet No.174/2022 was filed on 19.12.2022, pursuant to which the learned JMFC, Raipur took cognizance on 22.12.2022 in Criminal Case No.18360/2022. The petitioners, therefore, seek quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order and consequential proceedings on the ground that the allegations against the petitioners other than petitioner No.1 are general and omnibus in nature and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR, charge- sheet and consequential cognizance order are an abuse of the process of law and have been initiated with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners. He submits that the allegations against petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are general and omnibus in nature and, in the absence of any specific allegation or particular overt act attributed to them, their prosecution for an offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC is not sustainable. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162, wherein the Supreme Court has cautioned against implicating the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes on the basis of omnibus allegations and has observed that such proceedings, when no prima facie case is made out, may amount to misuse of the process of law. Learned counsel further submits that even if the allegations contained in the FIR are taken at their face value, they do not disclose the commission of the alleged offence by the petitioners, particularly petitioner Nos.2 to 5, who were residing separately and had no involvement in the matrimonial affairs of the complainant. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, in support of the proposition that the inherent jurisdiction of the Court may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties have amicably 5 resolved all their matrimonial disputes and differences and, with their free will and consent, have executed a Mutual Settlement Deed dated 12.08.2026. It is submitted that the terms of settlement have been duly understood and accepted by both parties and the same has been executed without any fear, coercion, undue influence or inducement. Learned counsel further submits that in terms of the settlement, the parties have agreed to take appropriate steps for bringing the pending criminal and other proceedings arising out of their matrimonial dispute to an end. It is also submitted that the petitioner No.1 has already paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to respondent No.2 by demand draft, while the remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is to be paid at the stage and in the manner agreed between the parties under the settlement. Learned counsel submits that the subsequent settlement is a material development which deserves to be taken on record and, considering the voluntary resolution of the matrimonial dispute between the parties, the pending proceedings may appropriately be dealt with in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly submits that, in compliance with the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by this Court, Petitioner No. 1 has already deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- before the Mediation Centre of this Court, which amount has been received by Respondent No. 2. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 supports the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and 6 submits that the parties have amicably and voluntarily settled their matrimonial disputes and differences. He submits that the settlement has been entered into by respondent No.2 of her own free will and without any coercion, pressure, undue influence or inducement, and that she has no objection to the Mutual Settlement Deed dated 12.08.2026 being taken on record. It is further submitted that, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the present proceedings and has agreed to cooperate in bringing the pending proceedings to an end in accordance with law. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that considering the material available on record, it cannot be held that no prima facie case against the petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the IPC is made out. He would further submit that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is extremely limited as FIR cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient material available on record. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 7 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. 11. 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. 12. 12. 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 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 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 8 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 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..…” 13. 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 9 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. 14. 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 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. 10 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 against them. 29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been 11 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 Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts 12 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. 15. In the present case, from a careful consideration of the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, it appears that the allegations against petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are general in nature and no specific overt act or particular incident has been attributed to them so as to constitute the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is also not in dispute that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are married sisters-in-law of respondent No.2 and have been residing separately with their respective families, petitioner No.4 is 13 the mother-in-law who was also residing separately with her other son and family, and petitioner No.5 is the brother-in-law who has been residing separately with his wife and children. Thus, the factual circumstances of the present case bear considerable similarity with the principles reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayan (supra), wherein it has been held that mere reference to the names of family members in a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement, cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. 16. Further, the subsequent development in the form of the Mutual Settlement Deed dated 12.08.2026 is also relevant for consideration of the present petition. The parties have voluntarily settled their matrimonial disputes and differences and respondent No.2, through her counsel, has categorically supported the settlement and expressed her willingness to bring the pending proceedings to an end. The settlement has admittedly been entered into voluntarily and without coercion, undue influence or pressure. Petitioner No.1 has also paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to respondent No.2 in terms of the settlement, besides the amount of Rs.50,000/- already deposited before the Mediation Centre pursuant to the order of this Court dated 28.01.2025, which amount has also been received by respondent No.2. 17. t is well settled that though the power under Section 528 of the BNSS is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, the same is intended to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the 14 ends of justice. In the present case, continuation of the criminal proceedings, particularly against the petitioners who are residing separately and against whom no specific and distinct allegations of cruelty have been made, would serve no useful purpose. The subsequent voluntary settlement between the parties further demonstrates that the matrimonial dispute, which formed the genesis of the criminal proceedings, has been brought to an amicable resolution. The present case, therefore, falls within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra), particularly the category where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. 18. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the separate residence of petitioner Nos.2 to 5, absence of specific allegations against them, and the subsequent amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, we are of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be allowed. 19. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.145/2022 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC, charge-sheet No.174/2022 dated 19.12.2022, cognizance order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the learned JMFC, Raipur in Criminal Case No.18360/2022, and all consequential 15 proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet