CGHC010221462024 2026:CGHC:36201-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1830 of 2024 1 - Rahul Chouksey S/o Shri Hari Prasad Chouksey Aged About 35 Years R/o A-316, New Minal Residency, Police Station Ayodhya Nagar, Bhopal, District Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 2 - Hari Prasad Chouksey S/o Shri Gopilal Chouksey Aged About 57 Years R/o A-317, New Minal Residency, Police Station Ayodhya Nagar, Bhopal, District Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. 3 - Smt. Raj Chouksey W/o Shri Hari Prasad Chouksey Aged About 53 Years R/o A-317, New Minal Residency, Police Station Ayodhya Nagar, Bhopal, District Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. 4 - Rohit Chouksey S/o Shri Hari Prasad Chouksey Aged About 31 Years R/o A-317, New Minal Residency, Police Station Ayodhya Nagar, Bhopal, District Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. 5 - Richa Chouksey W/o Shri Rohit Chouksey Aged About 28 Years R/o A- 317, New Minal Residency, Police Station Ayodhya Nagar, Bhopal, District Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Police Station Ayodhya Nagar District Bhopal 2 - Smt. Sudeepa Chouksey W/o Rahul Chouksey Aged About 30 Years R/o VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.21 11:01:17 +0530 2 Opposite City Dental Clinic, Vidya Nagar, Main Road, Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Techandani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State and Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Techandani, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer :- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned Final Report Dated 07/03/2022 (FINAL REPORT) (ANNEXURE P-1) and the sequential entire criminal proceedings pending against the Petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bilaspur (Copy of Order sheets- ANNEXURE P-2), in the interest of justice. Any 3 other relief may also be granted to the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between petitioner No.1 Rahul Chouksey and respondent No.2 Smt. Sudeepa Chouksey was solemnized on 25.01.2016 at Bhopal, and they were blessed with a son in April, 2019. According to the petitioners, a matrimonial dispute arose between the parties soon after their marriage and respondent No.2 frequently quarrelled with the petitioners and ultimately left the matrimonial home on 15.02.2022 and went to her parental home at Bilaspur, whereafter petitioner No.1 submitted a complaint dated 16.02.2022 before the concerned police alleging that respondent No.2 had abused and assaulted him and had threatened to implicate the petitioners in false criminal proceedings. On 18.02.2022, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint at Police Station Ayodhya Nagar, District Bhopal, alleging dowry demand, cruelty, physical assault and criminal intimidation against the petitioners, pursuant to which FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and thereafter Final Report No.01/2022 dated 07.03.2022 was filed and criminal proceedings were initiated before the Court below. The petitioners have challenged the said proceedings principally on the ground that the allegations against them, particularly petitioner Nos.2 to 5, are vague and omnibus and that the criminal case is an outcome of a matrimonial dispute. On the other hand, respondent No.2 has opposed the petition contending that she was subjected to continuous cruelty and dowry harassment and that on the intervening night of 15/16.02.2022 she was assaulted and pushed from the staircase by 4 her husband, resulting in injuries including loss of consciousness and bleeding from the nose and mouth; her version was contemporaneously recorded in the medico-legal reports and the Rojnamcha Sanha, which form part of the charge-sheet. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned FIR and the consequential Final Report dated 07.03.2022 are the outcome of a matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are vague, omnibus and inherently improbable, particularly against petitioner Nos.2 to 5, against whom no specific overt act or particulars of alleged cruelty, dowry demand or assault have been attributed. It is contended that respondent No.2 herself left the matrimonial home on 15.02.2022 and thereafter lodged the impugned FIR on 18.02.2022, while petitioner No.1 had already submitted a complaint dated 16.02.2022 apprehending false implication. Learned counsel would further submit that the prosecution has substantially proceeded on the allegations contained in the FIR and statements of interested relatives and that there is no substantive material disclosing the commission of the alleged offences. It is argued that continuation of the criminal proceedings, particularly against the relatives who have been roped in merely on the basis of general allegations, would amount to abuse of the process of law. Relying upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra and Another v. State of U.P. and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, and Kapil Agarwal v. Sanjay Sharma, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 154, learned counsel submits that where the allegations are vague 5 and omnibus and the criminal proceedings are being used as a weapon of harassment in a matrimonial dispute, this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash the impugned FIR, Final Report and the consequential criminal proceedings. 5. He would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 1 , Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another 2 , Swapnil v. State of Madhya Pradesh 3 , Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another4 (Para-24), Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 5 , Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others 6 and Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh 7 . 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/State would oppose the petition and submit that the impugned FIR, the Final Report dated 07.03.2022 and the material collected during investigation disclose prima facie commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners, and therefore, no case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is made out. It is contended that the FIR contains allegations of dowry demand, cruelty, physical assault and criminal intimidation and that the allegations are supported by the material collected during investigation, including the medical and police 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 6 records. Learned State counsel would further submit that the disputed questions of fact raised by the petitioners, including their defence that respondent No.2 voluntarily left the matrimonial home and that the allegations are false, cannot be examined or adjudicated upon in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., as the same would amount to conducting a mini-trial. It is thus submitted that the truthfulness and evidentiary value of the allegations are matters to be considered by the trial Court and, since the prosecution discloses a prima facie cognizable case, the petition seeking quashment of the Final Report and consequential criminal proceedings deserves to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would vehemently oppose the petition and submit that the FIR and the consequential Final Report disclose specific and prima facie allegations of continuous dowry demand, physical and mental cruelty, physical assault and criminal intimidation against the petitioners. It is contended that substantial dowry was demanded and paid at and around the time of marriage and that respondent No.2 was subjected to continuous harassment thereafter. Learned counsel would further submit that on the intervening night of 15/16.02.2022, respondent No.2 was assaulted and pushed down the staircase by petitioner No.1, resulting in injuries, loss of consciousness and bleeding from her nose and mouth, which is duly supported by the contemporaneous MLCs and the Rojnamcha Sanha maintained by the police. It is argued that such material forms part of the charge-sheet and prima facie corroborates the allegations of assault and cruelty, and therefore, the plea of the petitioners that 7 respondent No.2 voluntarily left the matrimonial home is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations against the petitioners cannot be discarded merely by terming them omnibus or by alleging misuse of Section 498-A IPC, and that the truthfulness, reliability and sufficiency of the material are matters for consideration at the stage of trial. Relying upon the settled principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction, learned counsel submits that since the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences, the present petition is premature and devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. 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 482 of Cr.P.C. 10. In the matter of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the accused can approach the High Court either under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 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. 8 (1998) 5 SCC 749 8 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others9 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. 9 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 9 (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. (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." 12. 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 10 Private Limited v. Visaka Industries 10 , Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 11 and Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar. v. State of Maharashtra and others 12 ". 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. 13. Having noticed the scope of interference by this Court in a petition relating to quashment of FIR/charge-sheet, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that the impugned Final Report dated 07.03.2022 has been filed against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and consequential criminal proceedings have been initiated before the Court below. The allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation relate to alleged dowry demand, cruelty, physical assault and criminal intimidation, with the prosecution placing reliance, inter alia, upon the medical and police records concerning the alleged incident dated 15.02.2022. 14. Chapter XXA of the IPC deals with offence of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband. Section 498-A of the IPC defines the offence of cruelty as under:- 10 (2020) 4 SCC 162 11 (2020) 13 SCC 435 12 (2019) 18 SCC 191 11 "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." 15. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to establish offence under Section 498-A 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. 16. 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 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 12 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. 17. In the matter of Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and Another, (2024) 12 SCC 268., the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a person is made to face criminal trial on the basis of general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, particularly in a matrimonial dispute, the same would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. It was further held that the Court owes a duty to scrutinize such allegations to ascertain whether there is any prima facie material against the accused or whether the criminal proceedings have been instituted merely with an ulterior motive to implicate and harass them. The aforesaid principle is attracted to the present case, particularly in respect of petitioner Nos.2 to 5, against whom the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and no specific overt act relating to the alleged offences has been attributed. 18. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others 13 their Lordships of the Supreme Court delineated the duty of the criminal Courts while proceeding against relatives of victim's husband 13 (2018) 14 SCC 452 13 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. 19. 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 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 14 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....." 20. Having noticed the legal position qua quashing of the FIR and charge- sheet, the question that would arise for consideration is whether, taking the contents of the FIR and charge-sheet as they stand, the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against the petitioners? 21. 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 15 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 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 16 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 not uncommon. At times, even 17 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 18 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 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." 1. 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 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 20 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 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." 2. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it transpires from a perusal of the FIR, the statements of respondent No.2 and the material collected during investigation that, except for the broad and omnibus allegations of dowry demand and cruelty, no specific date, time, place or distinct overt act has been attributed to any of the petitioners so as 21 to demonstrate their individual involvement in the alleged offences. Though respondent No.2 has alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry, the allegations against the petitioners are substantially general in nature and do not disclose the specific role played by each of them in the alleged acts. So far as the incident dated 15.02.2022 is concerned, although the medical records record the history of assault and the allegation that respondent No.2 was pushed from the staircase, the said material principally refers to the alleged involvement of her husband and does not contain any specific material demonstrating the individual participation of petitioner Nos.2 to 5 in the alleged assault. The contemporaneous medical and police records, therefore, cannot, by themselves, sustain the prosecution against all the petitioners for the offences alleged. The material collected during investigation also does not disclose any specific instance whereby the petitioners, individually or collectively, demanded dowry or subjected respondent No.2 to such cruelty as would fall within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC. The allegations, even when taken at their face value and read in conjunction with the material collected during investigation, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners in the manner alleged. The fact that the parties were admittedly embroiled in a matrimonial dispute and that respondent No.2 left the matrimonial home on 15.02.2022, followed by lodging of the FIR on 18.02.2022, also assumes significance while examining the circumstances in which the criminal proceedings came to be instituted. In the absence of specific 22 and cogent material establishing the individual involvement of the petitioners, permitting the criminal prosecution to continue would amount to subjecting them to the rigours of a criminal trial on the basis of general and omnibus allegations and would consequently amount to an abuse of the process of law. The case, therefore, falls within the parameters of Categories 1, 3, 5 and 7 of paragraph 102 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra). 3. It is also pertinent to note that this Court had referred the matter to the Mediation Centre with a view to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties; however, despite their participation in the mediation proceedings, no settlement could be arrived at and the mediation proceedings failed. Nevertheless, the failure of mediation does not affect the power of this Court to examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose the commission of any offence. On such examination, this Court finds that the allegations against all the petitioners are general, vague and omnibus in nature and there is no specific material demonstrating their individual involvement in the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Though the medical records support the factum of injuries sustained by respondent No.2, they do not disclose any specific role of petitioner Nos.2 to 5 in the alleged incident, while the allegations of dowry demand and cruelty against the petitioners lack specific particulars so as to constitute the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. The material collected during investigation, therefore, does not disclose sufficient 23 grounds to sustain the prosecution against the petitioners for the offences alleged. Consequently, permitting the criminal prosecution to continue against the petitioners would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 4. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid legal analysis and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Final Report No.01/2022 dated 07.03.2022, filed pursuant to the FIR dated 18.02.2022 registered at Police Station Ayodhya Nagar, District Bhopal, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the order taking cognizance and registering the criminal case pursuant thereto, and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, against all the petitioners, are hereby quashed. 5. 5. 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. 6. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. The entire criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid charge- sheet and pending before the learned Trial Court against the petitioners stand quashed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved