Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:29749-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 246 of 2025 1 - Avinash Dahariya S/o Narmada Prasad Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Godhi, Police Station- Rampur, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.03 10:38:38 +0530 2 - Narmada Prasad Dahariya S/o Sadhuram Aged About 57 Years R/o Village- Godhi, Police Station- Rampur, District- At Korba, Presently Residing (C.G.), 3 - Urmila Prasad W/o Narmada Prasad Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Godhi, Police Station- Rampur, District- Korba (C.G.), At Presently Residing 4 - Abhishek Dahariya S/o Narmada Prasad Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Godhi, Police Station-Rampur, District- Korba, At (C.G.), Presently Residing 5 - Amitesh Dahariya S/o Narmada Prasad Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Godhi, Police Station-Rampur, District- Korba, (C.G.), Presently Residing At ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Chhattisgarh. Raipur, 2 - The Station House Officer Police Station- Baloda, District- Chhattisgarh. Janjgir-Champa, 3 - Rajani Dahariya W/o Avinash Dahariya Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Godhi, Police Station- Rampur, District- Korba (C.G.) Presently Residing At Village- Khaija, Chowki-Pantora, District- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Respondents 2
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioners : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.3 appeared in person before this Court. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02.07.2025 1. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 and in exercise thereof call for the records, if necessary, admit the petition and may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and to quash the F.I.R. dated 25.10.2024 registered at Police Station - Baloda, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) bearing Crime No. 378/2024, Chargesheet dated 27.11.2024 bearing Chargesheet No. 312/2024 for offence punishable under Section 498-A and 34 of the IPC by the Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), Cognizance Order (First Order Sheet) dated 02.12.2024 in Criminal Case No. 1276/2024 which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) [ANNEXURE P/1] and (if any), all consequent proceedings incidental & accidental thereto and orders 3 prejudicial to the petitioner herein and/or pass such other orders in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer submits that the respondent No.3/wife is present in person before this Court and she wishes to appear in person to contest the matter and he further submits that respondent No.3/wife has been identified by him. 3. As per mediation report dated 23/06/2025, mediation between the parties has failed. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 10/06/2025, the petitioner No.1/husband has deposited the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the mediation center on 11/06/2025. 4. Respondent No.3/wife appeared in person and submits before this Court that she has received Rs.1,00,000/-, which was deposited by the petitioner No.1/husband as per the order of this Court dated 10/06/2025. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 is the father- in-law, petitioner No.3 is mother-in-law, petitioner Nos. 4 & 5 are the brother-in-laws of the complainant/respondent No.3. Marriage of petitioner No.1 was performed with the respondent No.3 on 22.05.2024 in an arranged marriage at village Godhi, 4 District – Korba and petitioner No.1 is a student, who is preparing for competitive examinations and respondent No.3 is a qualified with M.Sc (Botony) Graduate and prior to her marriage, she was working in a private school as a teacher. He further submitted that respondent No.3 resided at her in-law’s house after marriage for 29 days only, then she returned back to her maternal home. He submits that as per Hindu rites and rituals, customary gifts were exchanged between both the family of bride and groom, however, there was no demand of dowry by the petitioners to the respondents No.3 and her family members. He also submitted that filing of charge-sheet for offence punishable under Section 498A, 34 of IPC against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of law and Court, as the police report along with supporting materials do not disclose commission of any offence much less an offence of cruelty as envisaged under the provisions of Section of 498-A of IPC. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the dowry demand has been made by the petitioners, due to which, offence under Section 498 A r/w 34 of IPC has been registered against the petitioners. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 8. The Supreme Court in the mater of State of Haryana and 5 others v. Bhajan Lal and others1 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 should be exercised, which are as under: - 9. “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 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 6 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. (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 a criminal proceeding is 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 7 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.” 10. Having noticed the scope of interference by this Court in the petition relating to quashment of FIR, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that in the impugned FIR, three petitioners have been charged for offence under Sections 498-A, 34 of the IPC. 11. Chapter XXA of the IPC deals with offence of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband. Section 498A of the IPC defines the offence of cruelty as under:- “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. 8 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.” 12. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to establish offence under Section 498A 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. 13. The word 'cruelty' within the meaning of Section 498/A 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 would attract Section 498/A of the IPC. Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC contemplates harassment of woman to coerce or any 9 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. 14. Similarly, in the matter of Sunder Babu and others v. State of Tamil Nadu2 delay in filing complaint against accused therein was taken note of by their Lordships of the Supreme Court holding the case to be covered by Category Seven of para-102 highlighted in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), the prosecution for offence under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was quashed. 15. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others3 their Lordships of 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. 2 3