1 CGHC010287782026 2026:CGHC:37359-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1944 of 2026 1 - Mo. Mozid Ansari S/o Imamuddin Ansari, Aged About 33 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Mo. Majeed Ansari In The Impugned Chargesheet And Proceedings), (Husband) 2 - Imamuddin Ansari S/o Late Ziyarat Hussain, Aged About 67 Years Resident Of Village Aara, Balrampur, P. S. Bariyon, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C. G.) (Father -In-Law) 3 - Azim Ansari S/o Imamuddin Ansari, Aged About 43 Years Resident Of Village Aara, Balrampur, P. S. Bariyon, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C. G.) (Brother -In-Law) 4 - Sahana Parween, W/o Azim Ansari, Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Village Aara, Balrampur, P. S. Bariyon, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C. G.) (Sister - In - Law) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Mahila Thana, Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Sanjeeda Khatun, Wife Of Mo. Mozid Ansari, Aged About 39 Years R/o Ayaan Marg, Mominpura, P. S. Ambikapur, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Advocates. For State : Shri S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Manoj Paranjpe and Shri Arpan Verma, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.08.20 17:14:29 +0530 2 20.08.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following prayer: “I. To kindly be pleased to quash the FIR dated 11-05-2026 bearing Crime No. 04/2026 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, District Sarguja (Ambikapur) (C.G) against the petitioners, for the offences under sections 85, 296, 115(2), 3(5) of the BNS (498-A, 294, 323, 34 of the erstwhile IPC) II. To kindly be pleased to quash the impugned final report bearing no. 06/2026 dated 06-07-2026 filed against the petitioners under sections 85, 296, 115(2), 3(5) of the BNS in Crime No. 04/2026 (Annexure P-1) III. To kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 08- 07-2026 (Annexure P-2) whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G) has taken cognizance of the impugned chargesheet and registered the impugned criminal proceedings as Criminal Case No. 6994/2026 IV. To kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 6994/2026 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G) V. And to kindly grant any other relief to the petitioners as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were married on 17.05.2017 according to Muslim rites and have a minor son aged about eight years. The respondent-wife lodged the impugned FIR alleging that despite receiving substantial dowry at the time of marriage, the petitioners subjected her to continuous cruelty, demanded a Scorpio vehicle as additional dowry, assaulted and abused her, and that on 03.02.2026 the husband attempted to pour hot oil upon her, resulting in burn injuries to their minor son. She also alleged that petitioner No.1 was 3 maintaining an illicit relationship with another woman due to which she was subjected to physical and mental harassment. 3 He further submits that petitioner No.1 had lodged a written complaint on 16.11.2025 stating that respondent No.2 was suffering from behavioural and mental health issues, frequently quarreled with family members, assaulted their minor son, and repeatedly threatened to implicate him and his family in false dowry cases. Thereafter, several counseling proceedings were conducted before the Women Counseling Centre, but no settlement could be arrived at. He further submits that on 24.03.2026, the brothers and relatives of respondent No.2 assaulted a witness attending the counseling proceedings, resulting in registration of FIR No.62/2026 against them. Thereafter, respondent No.2 and her relatives allegedly initiated a series of complaints against the petitioners, which, according to the petitioners, were filed only as counterblasts to the said FIR. The counsel for petitioners submit that enquiries conducted on those complaints did not substantiate the allegations and, therefore, the impugned FIR is also a malicious and retaliatory prosecution intended to harass the petitioners. He further contended that the allegations against the relatives are vague and omnibus in nature and seek quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings. 4 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has opposed the petition. It is submitted that the FIR contains serious allegations of cruelty, harassment and demand of dowry and that the petitioners had allegedly demanded a Scorpio vehicle as additional dowry. It is further submitted that allegations regarding assault, abuse and an incident involving hot oil, resulting in burn injuries to the minor 4 son, have also been made. According to learned counsel, the material collected during investigation prima facie discloses commission of the offences and the defence raised by the petitioners involves disputed questions of fact, which ought to be adjudicated by the trial Court and not in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 5 We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records annexed with the petition. 6 In the present case, the Court is conscious that respondent No.2 has levelled allegations relating to demand of dowry, cruelty, assault and an alleged incident involving hot oil. Ordinarily, the existence of such allegations would require the Court to exercise restraint. However, the circumstances in which the impugned FIR came to be lodged cannot be completely ignored while examining whether continuation of prosecution would advance the cause of justice. 7 The material placed before this Court demonstrates that the matrimonial discord had substantially preceded the registration of the impugned FIR. Petitioner No.1 had lodged a complaint as early as 16.11.2025. Counseling proceedings thereafter took place before the Women Counseling Centre. The subsequent registration of FIR No.62/2026 against the brothers and relatives of respondent No.2 on the allegation of assault during the counseling proceedings is also a relevant surrounding circumstance. The impugned FIR was thereafter lodged on 11.05.2026. The chronology, by itself, would not be sufficient to discard a genuine allegation of matrimonial cruelty. However, where the surrounding circumstances disclose a highly acrimonious matrimonial dispute and the accused place before the Court contemporaneous material indicating that criminal litigation had 5 been initiated from both sides, the Court is entitled to examine whether the criminal process is being employed as a means of retaliation. 8 On a cumulative consideration of the material placed before this Court, this Court finds substance in the submission of the petitioners that the criminal prosecution has arisen in the backdrop of an intense matrimonial dispute and that the allegations against the petitioners, particularly the relatives of petitioner No.1, have not been supported by sufficiently specific and individualised particulars demonstrating their respective roles. The allegations, insofar as they seek to implicate the family members collectively, substantially partake of the character of general and omnibus accusations. It is also significant that the petitioners have placed on record the earlier complaint dated 16.11.2025 and the subsequent proceedings before the Women Counseling Centre. These circumstances lend considerable support to the contention that the criminal prosecution cannot be viewed in isolation from the continuing matrimonial discord and the criminal proceedings initiated by the parties against each other. 9 The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that matrimonial disputes require careful scrutiny where criminal proceedings are sought to be continued against several members of the matrimonial family on the basis of general and omnibus allegations. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana Vs. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, the Supreme Court reiterated that mere reference to family members, without specific allegations showing their active involvement, cannot ordinarily furnish a proper basis for criminal prosecution. The Court has also held that generalized and sweeping allegations unsupported by concrete and particularized material may amount to abuse of the process of law. 6 10 The said principle has continued to be applied by the Supreme Court in recent decisions. Where the allegations against relatives are bald, vague and omnibus and do not disclose their specific participation in the alleged acts, continuation of the criminal proceedings has been held to constitute an abuse of the process of law. 11 The Supreme Court has recognised that the inherent jurisdiction may appropriately be exercised where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides or is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. The categories illustrated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, continue to guide the exercise of such jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court has recently reiterated that proceedings falling within the category of malicious prosecution instituted to settle personal scores may be quashed to prevent abuse of the process of law. 12 Thus, applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and would amount to permitting the criminal process to be used as an instrument in the ongoing matrimonial dispute. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is therefore required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice. 13 Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR dated 11.05.2026 bearing Crime No.04/2026, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sarguja (Ambikapur), for offences under Sections 85, 296, 115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, is hereby quashed and final report/charge-sheet bearing No.06/2026 dated 06.07.2026 arising out of the aforesaid 7 crime is hereby quashed. Order taking cognizance by the concerned Magistrate is also set aside insofar as it relates to present petitioners. 14 It is, however, made clear that the quashing of the aforesaid criminal proceedings shall not affect or prejudice any other proceeding, if any, instituted by either of the parties before any competent Court or authority, which shall be decided independently on its own merits and in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder