Nafr High Court | Courts & Cases

Case Details

1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.06.20 17:38:33 +0530 2025:CGHC:25497-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 802 of 2015 Pushkar Sinha S/o Shri K.N. Sinha Aged About 32 Years Occupation Advocate, R/o Near Mannu Chowk, Tikrapara, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station, City Kotwali, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Neetu Shrivastava W/o Late Pankaj Shrivastava Aged About 32 Years R/o Jaiswal Gali, Near Old High Court, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents CRMP No. 908 of 2015 1 - Surendra Prasad Shrivastava S/o Late Ambika Prasad Aged About 70 Years Occupation Retired Teacher, R/o Ward No. 30, Behind City Dispensary, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Meena Shrivastava W/o Surendra Prasad Shrivastava Aged About 63 Years Occupation Retired Teacher, R/o Ward No. 30, Behind City Dispensary, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Pawan Shrivastava S/o Surendra Prasad Shrivastava Aged About 40 Years Occupation Advocate, R/o Ward No. 30, Behind City Dispensary, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 4 - Smt. Padma Shrivastava W/o Pawan Shrivastava Aged About 36 Years Occupation Teacher Panchayat, R/o Ward No. 30, Behind City Dispensary, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioners Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) --- Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Md. Zakir Anand Shah and Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate as well as Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, in person For Respondent-State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate For Private Respondent : Ms. Nitu Shrivastava, in person General Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 1 8 .06.2025 1. Since both the matters relating to one and the same incident in relation to the First Information Report (for short, ‘FIR’) bearing Crime No.143/2015 registered at City Kotwali, Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), they have been clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3 2. CRMP No.802/2015 has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to

Facts

quash the impugned FIR and registration of crime no.143/15 by the Non-applicant no.1 at the behest of the Non-applicant no.2 on 28/06/2015 (Annexure A/1) in the interest of justice. Any other order that may be deemed fit and just on the fact and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice.” 3. CRMP No.908/2015 has been filed by the petitioners with the following relief(s):- “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to quash the impugned FIR and registration of Crime No.143/15 by the Non-applicant dated 28/06/2015 (Annexure A/1) in the interest of justice. Any other order that may be deemed fit and just on the fact and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice.” 4 4.

Legal Reasoning

proceed only when a prima facie offence is disclosed and further held that judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be 21 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 498-A IPC is made out and quashed the charges for offence under Section 498-A 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 22 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..…” 25. The 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 @ 23 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. 26. Very recently, the 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 24 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 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 25 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 26 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 contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint 27 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 28 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 have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into 29 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.” 30 Observing the aforesaid, the Apex Court quashed the FIR, the charge-sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court. 27. Perusal of the record would show that firstly, the FIR bearing Crime No.26/2015 has been lodged by the petitioners against the complainant at Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishble under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment of suicide of her husband. In the said crime, closure report has been submitted. Thereafter, as a counter-blast, the complainant has lodged the FIR dated 28.06.2015 bearing Crime No.143/2015 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC. 28. In the complaint so made, the complainant has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners. She has alleged that her husband Late Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava died by suicide on 08.03.2014 and at that relevant time, she was in Delhi for medical treatment due to her serious illness. It is further alleged that her mother-in-law Smt. Meena Kumari Shrivastava, always troubled them for a child, even after knowing about her serious illness, due to which, both of them were always mentally disturbed. She also alleged that in the marriage, family members of her husband were not present because they had demanded Rs.5,00000-/ (five lakhs) cash from her parents, but her husband was totally against dowry, therefore considering their demand 31 illegal, he went against the wishes of his family and married her, which was not acceptable to my in-laws. It has been reflected that the complaint so lodged is without being full particulars about date and place that all the petitioners were treated her with cruelty for not bringing dowry. 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. 29. 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 Section 498-A and 34 of the IPC is made out for prosecuting the petitioner- Pushkar Sinha in CRMP No.802/2015 as well as petitioner No.1- Surendra Prasad Shrivastava, petitioner No.2- Smt. Meena Shrivastava, petitioner No.3- Pawan Shrivastava and petitioner No.4- Smt. Padma Shrivastava in CRMP No.908/2015 for the above-stated offences. 30. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, the FIR dated 28.06.2015 in connection with Crime No.143/2015 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur for offence under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC is hereby quashed to the extent of petitioner- Pushkar Sinha in CRMP No.802/2015 as 32 well as petitioner No.1- Surendra Prasad Shrivastava, petitioner No.2-Smt. Meena Shrivastava, petitioner No.3- Pawan Shrivastava and petitioner No.4- Smt. Padma Shrivastava in CRMP No.908/2015. 31. In the result, both the petitions being CRMP Nos.802/2015 and 908/2015 filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR dated 28.06.2015 bearing Crime No.143/2015 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC are hereby allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Anu

Arguments

Brief facts of the cases, in nutshell, are that Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava has committed suicide in the intervening night of 07- 08.03.2014 in Bilaspur, who was an Advocate and all the petitioners are member of the noble profession of Advocacy and are Practicing Lawyers of this Hon'ble Court. The complainant namely Smt. Nitu Shrivastava is widow of deceased Pankaj Shrivastava. Shri Pushkar Sinha is the cousin (maternal uncle's son) of Late Pankaj Shrivastava. Mr. who committed suicide on the intervening night of 07-08 March, 2014 in Bilaspur. Shri Surendra Prasad Shrivastava is the father, Smt. Meena Shrivastava is the mother, Shri Pawan Shrivastava is the brother and Smt. Padma Shrivastava is the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of Late Pankaj Shrivastava. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that they came to learn that the relations between Late Pankaj Shrivastava and the complainant as husband and wife were not cordial and the complainant deserted Late Pankaj Shrivastava for pursuing her acting career in glamour world. She was residing at Delhi and was in the habit of pressurizing Late Pankaj Shrivastava for sending money in the bank account of the complainant and her father. The aforesaid fact of compelling Late Pankaj Shrivastava for keep sending money was told by Late Pankaj Shrivastava himself to his father. The moment/minute before death of Late Pankaj Shrivastava was in telephonic conversation/call with the complainant and it is the 5 complainant who informed the family members of Late Pankaj Shrivastava about the suicide of her husband. The fact of death of Late Pankaj Shrivastava came to know about the family members of the Late Pankaj Shrivastava through the mobile phone of Late Pankaj Shrivastava, in which in the previous moments of death he was engaged in mobile communication through mobile application software namely Whatsapp with the complainant and the discussion between them was going on between them with regard to extra marital relations of complainant with some boy of Hyderabad. The aforesaid fact of betrayal and disloyalty and the confession of the same were the reasons behind suicide of Late Pankaj Shrivastava. 6. After the aforesaid unfortunate event, the petitioners went to the house of deceased Pankaj Shrivastava for his last rites and rituals, which was performed in the parental house of the deceased situated at Fazalbada, behind City Dispensary, Bilaspur. On 23.03.2014, Shri Surendra Prasad Shrivastava, the father of Late Pankaj Shrivastava made a written complaint to the Station House Incharge, Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur alleging that there are sufficient circumstances in the case pointing towards the guilt of the complainant in committing the offence under Section 306 of the IPC and as a counterblast to the aforesaid complaint, on 29.03.2014, the complainant has also made a complaint to the Police alleging that the family members 6 of Late Pankaj Shrivastava were pressurizing her husband for money and property. The Police did not take any action on the aforesaid complaint and hence, the father of Late Pankaj Shrivastava made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur for initiating investigation against the complainant. The complainant started pressurizing the family of Late Pankaj Shrivastava for taking the complaint back otherwise she threatened the entire family to be roped in false cases. As such, the father of Late Pankaj Shrivastava was left with no other option, but to make a representation to the Governor on 04.04.2014. The Complainant tried to dispose of the property belonging to the joint family of Late Pankaj Shrivastava by selling and dispossessing the family which was strongly resisted by the family and in this regard, the petitioners were contacted by the family of Late Pankaj Shrivastava and the applicant after being appointed as Lawyer of the family took steps to protect the interest of his client irrespective of the relations and in this regard sent legal notices to different institutions; such as Life Insurance Corporation Ltd. (LIC), State Bank of India (SBI)-Life Insurance Company. 7. It is further case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 also received notices/ communications from the above institutions in the capacity of lawyer of the family and petitioner No.1 as a Lawyer of the family has got instituted a civil suit vide Succession 7 Case No.23/2014 before the learned First Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur (C.G.) in which restraining orders have been passed against complainant. The learned First Civil Judge, Class-I has also vide order dated 28.08.2014 allowed the application filed by petitioner No.1 on behalf of his clients and has passed temporary injunction against the complainant from receiving any insurance funds from Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. In the meanwhile, the complainant got her name mutated over the lands situated at village Bodri, Bilaspur which is a joint family property. The petitioner No.1 as a counsel of the family got the aforesaid mutation order set aside in appeal vide order dated 25.04.2015 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Bilaspur (C.G.). Petitioner No.1 also advised and got instituted a civil suit for the above land at Bodri and other landed properties vide Civil Suit No. 178A/2014 in which vide order dated 06.09.2014, the learned First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur has passed order of temporary injunction restraining the complainant from transferring the title and possession of the joint family property to anyone. Since the petitioner No.1 was instrumental in getting the evil designs of the complainant frustrated, therefore a malice / grudge was nurtured in her mind against the petitioners. The complainant started forging false and concocted stories of cruelty being meted out to her after the death of her husband. In this regard, upon one such complaint made to the City Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur by the complainant, the aforesaid CSP called 8 explanation from the petitioner No.1 which was replied to by him applicant vide his letter dated 13.08.2014 that since petitioner No.1 is the counsel of the family and earlier refused to help the complainant to assist in her conspiracy the aforesaid complaint has been motivatedly lodged. 8. In the meanwhile, the father of Late Pankaj Shrivastava filed a writ petition vide WPCR No.134/2014 on 05.08.2014 for a direction to the police to enquire into and investigate upon the complaint made by him with regard to abetment of suicide by the complainant. This Court vide order dated 09.01.2015 directed the police to process the matter and submit a final report in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1. After the direction of this Court, the case was registered against the complainant bearing Crime No.26/2015 on 06.02.2015 after taking one month further time and the learned Court has passed the order dated 09.01.2015. Thereafter, the complainant subsequently as an afterthought has also filed a writ petition on 15.01.2015 seeking similar directions for registration of crime against the family members of the petitioners vide WPCR No.27/2015, which was pending consideration. The Complainant with the aid and assistance of the aforesaid IGP got prepared and submitted a report through Additional Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, in which it has been 9 opined by the ACP that no case under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the complainant, but a case under Section 498- A of the IPC is made out against the family members of Late Pankaj Shrivastava as per the complaint dated 31.07.2014 made by the complainant. The aspect of delay in FIR has not been dealt with by the ACP in his report and the entire gamut of allegations has been leveled by the complainant after the death of her husband. 9. On the same day, i.e. on 28.06.2015, FIR has also been registered by the Police deliberately against unknown persons on the complaint made by the complainant that the property and gold/silver articles of the complainant including original papers of property have been stolen. Direct and indirect allegations have been made against the petitioners and family members of late Pankaj Shrivastava in the aforesaid FIR, which clearly demonstrates unfair, partial, motivated and discriminatory action of the State authorities. The FIR bearing Crime No.143/2015 has also been registered against the petitioners i.e. family members of Late Pankaj Shrivastava on the same day i.e. on 28.06.2015 under Section 498-A and 34 of the IPC surprisingly upon complaint dated 31.07.2014 made by the complainant. 10. The above FIR/prosecution is manifestly attended with mala fides of the complainant coupled with police assistance. The following members of the family are accused in the impugned crime :- 10 1. Surendra Shrivastava (Father) 2. Meena Kumari (Mother) 3. Pawan Shrivastava (Brother) 4. Padma Shrivastava (Brother's wife) 5. Pushkar Sinha (the applicant/counsel of the family) 11. It is also the case of the petitioners that due to registration of impugned crime, the petitioners were constrained to move an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 09.07.2015 on behalf of father, mother and sister-in-law of Late Pankaj Shrivastava and rejected the prayer of bail on behalf of brother of Late Pankaj Shrivastava i.e. Shri Pawan Shrivastava and later, he was released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Bilaspur on 10.07.2015. 12. The petitioners have preferred two petitions, i.e. CRMP Nos.802/2015 and 908/2015 for quashing of earlier FIR No.143/2015 on various grounds and the Court has passed an interim order on 21.09.2015 in CRMP No.802/2015 and on 21.12.2015 in CRMP No.908/2015 to the effect that commencement of the proceeding on the basis of the FIR agaisnt the petitioners shall not be proceeded. The authorities did not comply with the interim order and hence, a contempt petition has been filed by petitioner No.1 vide Cont. Case (C) No.122/2016, in which notices have been issued to the contemnors. 11 13. Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Md. Zakir Anand Shah and Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel as well as Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, petitioner in person have submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged motivatedly in order to save the private respondent from prosecution under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment and instigation of suicide being given to her husband Late Pankaj Shrivastava. They further submitted that the City Superintendent of Police in earlier enquiry clearly opined that the complaint of the the complainant need not be processed as it is mainly a civil dispute, but yet on the instructions of IGP, the impugned FIR has been lodged which deserves to be reprimanded by this Court. It has been argued that the petitioners have not taken into possession any vehicle or any other article to justify the prosecution in the impugned crime and the complainant has lodged the FIR against the petitioners only due to the reason that the petitioners are Advocates as well as family members of deceased Pankaj Shrivastava and by getting restraining orders, has prevented the complainant to dispose of the joint family property. It has been further argued that the impugned prosecution is a clear abuse of process of law for the reason that gross miscarriage of justice would be caused to the petitioners, if the impugned FIR is allowed to operate against them. It has been contended that no ingredients of Section 498-A of the IPC are present in the instant cases even if the entire complaint/FIR are taken to be true on their face value. Reliance has been placed 12 upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2014) 2 SCC 1, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and others, (2010) 12 SCC 254, State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(3) SCC 334 and Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 to buttress the submissions. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that has annexed so many documents which was subject part of investigation like whatsapp conversation, property papers, bonds, paper of vehicles which was also annexed in civil cases, for which the police has issued so many notices to produce before Investigation Officer, but till date neither the present petitioners nor the other co-accused produce the same before Investigation Officer and till date, they are denying the same stating that they do not have any documents in their possession. The aforesaid act of present petitioners suggested that they had not co- operating the Police for investigation and they are hiding the real truth and most importantly they also tempering with the evidence. He further submits that present petitioners have filed the instant petition for quashment of FIR on the ground that respondent No.2 13 had made false allegation and the concocted story of cruelty, but after going through the case diary in hand evidence recorded, material collected the answering respondent have sufficient material against the present petitioners, therefore, the offence have been registered against the present petitioners and most importantly, the investigation is going on, but due to non- cooperating nature of accused person investigation was not completed and due to interim order passed by this Court, the petitioners are tempering with the evidence, therefore, instant petitions are devoid of merit and has to be dismissed on the same ground. It has been contended that the allegation of the present petitioners straightway denied that the present FIR was registered under the influence of senior officer because the Police is acting or doing his job purely on the basis of complaint and the material and evidence collected during investigation. It is further respectfully submitted that the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded that are part of the case diary and after going through the written complaint made by respondent No.2 and the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it is submitted that there are enough materials against the present petitioner and at this stage, it would not be appropriate to entertain the petition being premature and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed on this count only being premature and having no merits. 14 15. Learned State counsel further submitted that present are not the cases where the allegations made in the FIR does not disclose the offence being committed by the present petitioner under Section 498-A of the IPC and therefore, not the fit cases for exercising the inherent powers of this Court by quashing the registration of Crime No.143/15 as also the FIR against the petitioners, as such, both the petitions being sans merit, are deserve to be dismissed. It is respectfully submitted on behalf of the State that on 21.04.2014, the complainant made a written complaint before Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur alleging all the torture and harassment done by the family member of the deceased that how she was subjected to cruelty by family members of deceased Pankaj Shrivastava and she further alleged that they are threatening her they will falsely implicate in criminal case and therefore she asked for the proper investigation and security for her. The allegation of the present petitioners that the police intentionally harassing the family members of deceased Pankaj Shrivastav is wrong and there is no substance in allegation and the Police has not registered any case against the Pradeep Shrivastava and his wife, who is also the family member of deceased Pankaj Shrivastava, but during investigation, there is no allegation against the above person, therefore, he has not alleged as an accused. It has been lastly contended that after going through the FIR and subsequently the statements, there are sufficient materials and allegation against 15 the present petitioners and the present petitioners tantamount to the cruelty as defined under the Section 498- A of the IPC and the authorities are making full efforts to complete investigation and to file final report before the competent Court, but the present petitioners are not co-operating with the authorities to complete the investigation specifically seizure of the vehicles and property documents as alleged by respondent No. 2, as such, both the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 16. Ms. Nitu Shrivastava, private respondent No.2 in person has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the petitioner in person and submitted that she got married to Pankaj Shrivastava with love-cum-arrange marriage on 20.04.2008. Her husband before marriage had told to her that he is an illicit/illegal child of Shri Surendra Prasad Shrivastava, as such, he never got love, affection and cooperation from Smt. Meena Shrivastava (wife of Sh. Surendra Prasad Shrivastava). She further submitted that Late Pankaj Shrivastava had refused the demand of heavy dowry of his father and in annoyance, his father had not given the permission for marriage as well as they have not attended the marriage ceremony of them. After one year of marriage, she and her husband decided to go for progeny, but unfortunately in June 2009 she had a fall which cause injury to Uterus resulting in miscarriage and in December 2012, as per directions of Dr. Nalini 16 Madharia of Ashirwad Hospital, Raipur, even the uterus related laparoscopic surgery was also conducted. It has been contended that she was not present at the time of death of her husband at Bilaspur and at that relevant time, she was at Delhi and in that condition, petitioners have started taking advantage of the situation, torturing mentally her husband and started losing his mental balance and during conversation with her, he husband used to weep and stated his feelings of committing suicide. Since the marriage was against the wishes of the father of Late Pankaj Shrivastava and hence, the petitioners started taunting her husband day and night, which he was not able to bear, and in this situation, he used to weep and talked about committing suicide. It has been further contended that Shri Surendra Prasad Shrivastava has brought suits for declaration of assets and permanent injunction against the property of the private respondent and her Late husband. 17. It has been argued that on 15.09.2023, during cross-examination, father of Late Pankaj Shrivastava, namely Shri Surendra Prasad Shrivastava has himself admitted that the he was not in talking terms her Late husband till his death because her husband had married against his wishes. It is amply clear that Shri Surendra Prasad Shrivastava had ended all relation in annoyance with the husband of the private respondent. It has been submitted that though, the reports of theft of gold/silver jewelry could not be 17 established because of police inefficiency but the documents which have been used by the petitioners by filing civil suits clearly establish the allegations made by her in FIR dated 28.06.2015. It is still a mystery that how police had registered FIR against unknown accused despite having strong adducing evidence against the petitioners. It has been further submitted that the arrest was made only after the rejection of anticipatory bail of the petitioners, however, they had misuse the position and made undue pressure on police against his arrest by lobbing the Advocates of Bar Associations. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Aluri Venkata Ramana v. Aluri Thirupathi Rao and others decided on 12.12.2024 in Criminal Appeal arising from the SLP (CRL.) No.9243/2024 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others decided on 13.04.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021, to buttress her submissions. 18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with both the petitions bearing CRMP Nos.802/2015 and 908/2015. 19. The Parliament by Act 46 of 1983 with a view to combat the menace of dowry deaths and harassment of woman at the hands of her husband or his relatives introduced Section 498-A and Section 302-B in IPC. Section 498-A reads as under:- 18 “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a women, 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.” 20. The "Explanation" appended to Section 498-A thereto defines cruelty to mean:- “(i) any willful 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 (ii) 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.” 21. Thus, the essential ingredients of Section 498-A are:- “1. A woman must be married. 19 2. She must be subjected to cruelty. 3. Cruelty must be of the nature of: (1) any willful conduct as was likely to drive such woman; a. to commit suicide; b. cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, either mental or physical; (ii) harassment of such woman, (1) With a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security, (2) or on account of failure of such woman or by any or her relation to meet the unlawful demand; (iii) woman was subjected to such cruelty by: (1) husband of that woman, or (2) any relative of the husband. For constitution of an offence under Section 498-A IPC, therefore, the ingredients thereof must be held to be existing.” 22. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Supreme Court 20 has held that casual reference to the family member of the husband in First Information Report 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. 23. 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 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. 24. 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