CGHC010269292026 2026:CGHC:34740-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1860 of 2026 1 - Intajaar Raje S/o Satish Dhavalkar Aged About 36 Years 2 - Latadevi W/o Satish Dhavalkar Aged About 56 Years 3 - Satish Dhavalkar S/o Late Shri Darbari Lal Dhavalkar Aged About 65 Years All Are R/o Ward No. 12, Sahid Kaushal Yadav Chowk Mathpara Kawardha, District Kabirdham C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, Police Station Mahila Thana Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Mandakini Raje W/o Intejar Raje Aged About 31 Years R/o Nayamandi Chulghat Road Takhatpur District Bilaspur C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners : Shri Leekesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms Anusha Naik, Dy GA For Private Respondent-2 : Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07.08.2026 Heard Shri Leekesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms Anusha Naik, learned Dy GA for the State and Shri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the private respondent-2. Crmp 1860 of 2026 2 1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer :- “It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned F.I.R. No. 20/2026 registered at the P.S. Mahila Thana Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, (C.G.) against the petitioners U/s 85, 115(2) and 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS and any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioners in the interest of justice.” 2. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2/ complainant, was solemnized on 06.02.2022 at Bilaspur, according to Hindu rites and customs. Out of the wedlock, a child was born on 16.01.2024. Initially, matrimonial life of the parties remained cordial. However, subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose between the spouses. The complainant alleged that after the marriage, the petitioners, including her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, demanded an additional amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from her parental family and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of the said demand. It was further alleged that after birth of the child, the relationship between the spouses deteriorated, compelling the complainant to leave her matrimonial home and reside with her parents. She also alleged that her jewellery, personal belongings and other articles were retained by the petitioners. Crmp 1860 of 2026 3 3. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, FIR No.20/2026 dated 20.04.2026 came to be registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioner No. 1(husband), as well as his parents, as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashment of the said FIR on the ground that the allegations against petitioners are vague, omnibus and bereft of any specific role or overt act and that their implication is only on account of their relationship with the private respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR has been registered on the basis of vague, omnibus and unsubstantiated allegations arising out of a matrimonial discord between petitioner No.1 and the private respondent. It is contended that the allegations regarding cruelty, harassment and demand of dowry are general in nature and do not disclose any specific date, time or place of the alleged incidents, so as to constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged. It is further submitted that the counselling proceedings conducted before the Mahila Thana did not contain any allegation regarding demand of dowry, or any specific act of cruelty against the petitioners and therefore, the allegations subsequently incorporated in the FIR are an afterthought. Learned counsel also submits that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law and, Crmp 1860 of 2026 4 therefore, the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences and the allegations made by the complainant require proper investigation. It is contended that at the stage of registration of the FIR, or investigation, this Court should not undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence. It is further submitted that the allegations relating to cruelty and harassment constitute matters requiring investigation and the petition under Section 528 of the BNSS deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The present petition has been preferred seeking quashment of FIR No.20/2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The allegations contained in the FIR arise out of matrimonial discord between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. During the pendency of the present petition, this Court, with a view to explore the possibility of an amicable resolution between the parties, directed petitioner No.1 to deposit a sum of ₹50,000/- before the Mediation Centre. The record reflects that the said amount has been deposited on 28.07.2026. However, mediation between the parties was failed as per order dated 04.08.2026. Crmp 1860 of 2026 5 8. The scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is well settled. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice, where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence, or where continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, has held that in matrimonial disputes, false implication of the relatives of the husband on the basis of general and omnibus allegations has become a matter of serious concern and that criminal proceedings against such relatives deserve to be quashed, where no specific role is attributed to them. The Court observed in paragraph No. 17 of its judgment that: “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 Crmp 1860 of 2026 6 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.” In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P.(2012) 10 SCC 741 it was observed: 16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana 11, it was also observed that: (SCC p. 454, para 6) "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." 10. Likewise, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Bihar, (2025) 3 SCC 735 wherein it was observed: "27. 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 Crmp 1860 of 2026 7 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. We say so for the reason that while the complainant/respondent No. 2 has made vague and omnibus allegations against the accused/appellant herein, she has failed to justify the same before this Court. Such actions would create significant divisions and distrust among people, while also placing an unnecessary strain on the judicial system, particularly criminal courts.” 11. On a careful consideration of the allegations made in the FIR, this Court finds that the allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature and do not disclose any specific overt act attributable to any of them, so as to constitute the essential ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Except making general allegations regarding cruelty, voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation, the FIR does not specify the date, time, place or the particular role played by each of the petitioners. In the absence of any specific and distinct allegations disclosing the individual involvement of the petitioners, Crmp 1860 of 2026 8 continuation of the criminal proceedings would not serve the ends of justice and would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. 12. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations made in the FIR and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Bhajan Lal (supra), Kahkashan Kausar (supra), and in Dara lakshmi(supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law. 13. Consequently, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 14. FIR No.20/2026 dated 20.04.2026 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, together with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua all the petitioners. 15. 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 Crmp 1860 of 2026 9 in accordance with law on their own merits and on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. 16. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.08.13 09:58:12 +0530