1 2026:CGHC:894-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2846 of 2024 1 - Md. Shahrukh Khan S/o Md. Firoz Khan Aged About 30 Years R/o Hno. 439 Choti Police Line, Near Main Post Office, Rajendranagar Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Md. Firoz Khan S/o Late Md. Safdar Khan Aged About 62 Years R/o Hno. 439 Choti Police Line, Near Main Post Office, Rajendranagar Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Nasrin Akhtar W/o Md. Firoz Khan Aged About 59 Years R/o Hno. 439 Choti Police Line, Near Main Post Office, Rajendranagar Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Alisha Khan D/o Md. Firoz Khan Aged About 24 Years R/o Hno. 439 Choti Police Line, Near Main Post Office, Rajendranagar Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Mahila Thana, Ambikapur Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Sadaf Khan D/o Md. Kayyum Khan Aged About 28 Years R/o Beside State Bank Main Branch, Sadar Road Barejpara Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tessy Abraham, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07/01/2026 1. Heard Mr. Tessy Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the chargesheet along with criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No. 1358 of 2024 as well as FIR registered under Section 498(A) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in Crime No. 10/2024 at Police Station- Mahila Thana, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. The matter was referred to the mediation by this Court vide order dated 2210.2024 and according to Mediation Report dated 10.12.2024, the mediation between the parties have failed. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners along with the husband and other in-laws have continuously after marriage have harassed and tortured the complainant and demanded dowry from 3 her and have thrown her out of her husband's house and are also not returning her women wealth (Stri Dhan), they have also threatened her on various occasions and after 6 months of the aforesaid marriage, the petitioner no. 1 used to drink and under influence of the liquor his behaviour has completely changed and whenever the petitioner no. 1 is in influence of the liquor, he used to beat the respondent no. 2 and whenever she informed the aforesaid cruel behavior of the petitioner no. 1 to her in-laws, they have instead of properly advising their son they used to take the side of their son (petitioner no. 1) and also they have demanded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- and 10 tola gold from the parents of the non-applicant no. 2 and due to non-fulfilling the demand the petitioners have taken the respondent no. 2 and left her in her mayka on 18/12/2023 in the home of her relatives namely Kulmul Haq Khan and then the complainant was residing at her Mayka and in the month of February 2024 she received the legal notice which has been sent on behalf of her husband by advocate in which some contents relating to divorce has been mentioned but the complainant/respondent no. 2 has not replied to the legal notice and after some days of the aforesaid legal notice the petitioner no. 1 has also sent a First Talaknaama "Talak-e-hasan" on 16/03/2024 and after receiving the aforesaid notice for divorce the complainant has lodged a written complaint before the learned Collector Ambikapur Sarguja and the learned Collector has directed the complainant for counselling before the 4 police station Mahila thana Ambikapur District Sarguja. And accordingly on 27/03/2024 the counselling proceeding took place and the next date for counselling was given for 12/04/2024 but before 12/04/2024 the complainant has lodged a report at police station Mahila thana Ambikapur, District Sarguja on 30/03/2024 and in the aforesaid complaint dated 30/03/2024 the police has registered the case and filed the chargesheet against the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complainant has lodged the FIR on the basis of bald and vague allegations against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the contents of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet do not, even prima facie, disclose the essential ingredients necessary for constituting the offences under Sections 498A,of the IPC. It is submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR are vague, general, and omnibus in nature, made only with a view to harass and pressurize the petitioner, and do not constitute any cognizable offence. He further submits that in compliance of the Hon’le Court’s order dated 22.10.2024, the petitioner no. 1 has deposited the amount of Rs. 50,000/- through petitioner no. 2 (Md. Firoz Khan) in cash and the same is received by Respondent no. 2. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to quash the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 would submit that the 5 marriage of answering respondent was performed with petitioner no. 1 on 18.01.2022 according to Muslim rites and rituals. After marriage; the answering respondent went to the house of petitioner no. 1 for performing matrimonial obligations, but after sometime of marriage, the petitioners used to subject her to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. The petitioners also used to beat the answering respondent during making demand of dowry, but the answering respondent bearing all the torture, assault and teasing given by petitioners with a hope that in future their behaviour towards answering respondent would be changed. It is noteworthy to mention here that occasionally the answering respondent used to talk with her maternal brother Naushad, upon which the petitioner no. 1 was doubting upon the character of answering respondent and he doubted that there were illicit relation between Naushad and answering respondent. Ultimately the petitioners have ousted the answering respondent from inlaws house and left her in the house of her elder father Kalamul Haq. On 30.03.2024 the petitioner made written complaint before the Mahila Thana, Ambikapur, where the aforesaid offences have been registered against the petitioners. He would further contend that it is a well settled law regarding the quashing of the criminal proceedings that the same power should be exercised very sparingly and in the exceptional circumstances only. The investigating agency may be allowed to carry on the necessary investigations. The quashing of the criminal proceedings would 6 paralyze the investigating agency and the real culprits of the offence in question shall be unnecessarily benefited. This Hon'ble Court is vested with inherent and extra ordinary powers under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., but it is the settled position of law that such extra ordinary jurisdiction should be exercised in criminal cases in exceptional matters with great circumspection. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioners have not been able to bring their case home in the category of exceptional case warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the matter of “State of Haryana & Others Vs. Ch. Bhajanlal & Others”, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 (Paragraphs 108 and 109), the Hon'ble Apex Court has illustratively given certain guidelines wherein, the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should be exercised, but the Petitioners have absolutely been failed to bring home his case within any of the given seven guidelines. Therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the answering respondent, the present petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of merit and substance, thus 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. 7 8. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, 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 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. 9. In the matter of 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 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. 10. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620, 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 others,1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 that criminal proceedings can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie ofence is disclosed and further 8 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 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 ofence 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 9 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 anyone 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..…” 11. 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 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. 12. Very recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayan 10 & Others v. State of Telangana & Another {Cr.A. No. 5199 of 2024, decided on 10.12.2024}, has observed as under: 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-recognized 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 generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized 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. Therefore, it cannot be believed that 11 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 ind 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 husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalized allegations during matrimonial conlicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting 12 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 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 therotection 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 13 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 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 14 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.” 13. In view of the aforesaid, the Hon’ble Apex Court quashed the FIR, the charge-sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court. 14. In the complaint so made, the complainant has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners without being full particulars about date and place that all the petitioners including the husband treated her with cruelty for not bringing sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. There is no specific allegation regarding anyone of the petitioners except common and general allegations against all the petitioners that they have demanded cash amount. 15. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, material available on record, perusing the FIR in which no specific allegations have been made and only bald and omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is made out for prosecuting the petitioners. 15 16. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, Criminal Case No. 1358 of 2024 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) arising out of Crime No. 10 of 2024 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) for the ofences under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is hereby quashed strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of these observations made hereinabove. 17. The petition under Section 528 of the BNSS is allowed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Madhurima