Dheeraj Gupta S/o Dinesh Chand Gupta Aged About 37 Years R/o 128/456, K-Block, Hidwai v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Mahila
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.09.10 10:36:55 +0530 2025:CGHC:45822-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 554 of 2025 Dheeraj Gupta S/o Dinesh Chand Gupta Aged About 37 Years R/o 128/456, K-Block, Hidwai Nagar, Ps - Kidwai, Tehsil And District Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh (Father Name Wrongly Mentioned In Fir As Dinesh Kastwar) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Mahila Thana, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Dipti Gupta D/o Ramsharan Gupta, W/o Dheeraj Gupta Aged About 34 Years R/o E-707, East - 12, Kachna Road, Near Petrol Pump, Khamardih, Post Office - Saddu, Ps - Khamardih, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Sr. Adv along with Mr. Rohan Shukla, Advocate For
Legal Reasoning
be held that no prima facie case against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 498A of the IPC is made out. He would further submit that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is extremely limited as FIR cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient material available on record. 9 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds considerable force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The chronology of events demonstrates that the FIR dated 02.01.2025 was lodged not in the ordinary course of events but only after initiation of divorce proceedings before the Family Court, Kanpur. The parties have been admittedly residing separately since 04.05.2022, and respondent No. 2 had herself joined in filing a mutual divorce petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act on 11.05.2023, wherein she unequivocally acknowledged receipt of all dowry, gifts, dowry and jewellery, leaving no dispute outstanding in that regard. Further, this admission, forming part of judicial proceedings, belies the subsequent allegations of misappropriation of dowry articles made in the FIR. 11. Further, the allegations levelled in the FIR are vague, omnibus, and devoid of particulars, lacking specific instances of cruelty or unlawful dowry demand. Continuation of such proceedings would amount to sheer harassment of the petitioner and his family, which falls 10 squarely within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, for exercise of inherent powers to quash. 12. Recently, in the matter of Ghanshyam Soni v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 INSC 803, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed a belated FIR under Section 498A IPC after 22 years, holding that stale and omnibus allegations, filed as an afterthought, cannot be the foundation for criminal prosecution. Similarly, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 923, it was held that vague and sweeping allegations against in-laws without specific attribution of roles constitute abuse of the criminal process. Further, in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Supreme Court observed that exaggerated and omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes must be carefully scrutinized, and courts must ensure that criminal law is not misused as a tool of vengeance. 13. Applying the above legal principles to the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the FIR dated 02.01.2025 registered at Mahila Thana, Raipur in Crime No. 1/2025 under Section 498A IPC is nothing but a counterblast to matrimonial proceedings, filed with mala 11 fide intent, and allowing it to proceed would amount to abuse of process of law. No specific allegations have been made and only bald and omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Sections 498A of the IPC is made out for prosecuting petitioner for the above-stated offences. 14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR bearing Crime No. 1/2025 dated 02.01.2025 registered at Mahila Thana, Raipur for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet
Arguments
: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Respondent(s) and Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rohan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Kishore Narayan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. By this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR beaing FIR No.-01/2025 dated 02.01.2025, registered at PS- Mahila Thana, Raipur, District- Raipur against the present petitioner for offence u/s 498A of IPC which is a gross abuse of process of law, illegal and against the provision of law and thus, liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.” 3. Prosecution story in brief is that the present case arises out of an FIR registered against the petitioner under Section 498A of the IPC. The petitioner is the husband of Respondent No. 2/Complainant, their marriage having been solemnized on 26.11.2015. From the wedlock, one male child, namely Rewansh Gupta, was born on 28.09.2021. It has been alleged by the complainant that soon after marriage, the petitioner, who was residing along 3 with his parents, started subjecting her to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. It is further alleged that despite her father having spent nearly Rs. 35,00,000/- towards marriage expenses and having provided jewellery and household articles to the petitioner and his family members, she was continuously harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. According to the complainant, even after the birth of their son, the behaviour of the petitioner and his family members did not improve. On the contrary, they misbehaved with her father and other relatives, and the minor child was also not given proper care or adequate food. On account of such ill-treatment, the complainant was compelled to leave her matrimonial home on 05.04.2022, and since then, she has been residing separately. It is further alleged that despite her repeated efforts to reconcile and cohabit, the petitioner refused to resume matrimonial life and, instead, insisted upon obtaining a divorce. Left with no other alternative, the complainant lodged the impugned FIR dated 02.01.2025, on the basis of which the present proceedings have been initiated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR dated 02.01.2025 has not been lodged in the ordinary course of law but as a counterblast to the divorce 4 proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the Family Court, Kanpur. The chronology of events clearly demonstrates that the parties have been living separately since 04.05.2022. Thereafter, a joint petition for mutual divorce was filed on 11.05.2023 and only after the petitioner filed a contested divorce petition on 16.07.2024, the present FIR was registered. Thus, the initiation of criminal proceedings is nothing but an arm-twisting tactic to harass the petitioner. It was next submitted that there is an inordinate delay of nearly three years in lodging the FIR. The alleged incidents of harassment pertain to the period immediately after marriage and later during the pregnancy and birth of the child in September 2021. However, the FIR was lodged only on 02.01.2025 without any contemporaneous complaint to the police, women cell, or even a family court. The unexplained and inordinate delay itself shows that the FIR is an afterthought, concocted to gain leverage in matrimonial litigation. Reliance was placed on Ghanshyam Soni v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 INSC 803, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed a 22-year- old FIR under Section 498A IPC on the ground that belated and unreliable allegations cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that the 5 FIR contains only general allegations against the petitioner and his parents, without citing any specific date, act, or independent witness. The narrative merely alleges that “sufficient dowry was not given” and that “harassment continued,” which are vague statements incapable of attracting Section 498A IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2024) held that vague and sweeping allegations, without particulars, are insufficient to continue criminal proceedings under Section 498A and the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was contended that Section 498A IPC, though enacted with the salutary object of protecting women, has in practice been grossly misused in matrimonial disputes. The Law Commission as well as the Supreme Court in several pronouncements have acknowledged such misuse. The filing of the FIR in the present case falls squarely within the parameters laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), where mala fide and vexatious prosecutions were held liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that the conduct of respondent No. 2 herself demonstrates that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. She willingly entered into a mutual divorce petition on 11.05.2023, 6 accepting monthly maintenance for the minor son. Having once admitted to severing matrimonial ties, it does not lie in her mouth to allege that she was still hopeful of reconciliation and therefore delayed the FIR. This conduct shows the inconsistency and mala fides of the respondent. Lastly, learned counsel relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 12.08.2025, wherein it was held that once parties have separated and matrimonial ties have broken down beyond repair, continuation of criminal prosecution under Section 498A IPC would serve no useful purpose except harassment, and such proceedings should be quashed in the interest of justice. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that respondent No. 2 herself, in paragraph 7 of the joint application for grant of decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act (filed as Annexure P/2 in the present petition), has unequivocally admitted that she has already received all the articles, gold ornaments, gifts, dowry and other valuables which were given to her at the time of marriage. The relevant portion reads as under: यह कि(cid:4), “ कि(cid:5)तीय प्ቌ/ आवेकि(cid:13)(cid:4)ा (cid:4)ो किववाह (cid:4)े समय ्ቚा् उपहार स्व्ቓ(cid:24) आभूष्ቓ, (cid:13)ान (cid:13)हेज इत्याकि(cid:13) (cid:4)ो कि(cid:5)तीय प्ቌ/आवेकि(cid:13)(cid:4)ा, ्ቚथम प्ቌ/ आवे(cid:13)(cid:4) से ्ቚा् (cid:4)र चु(cid:4)ी हैं तथा इसी ्ቚ(cid:4)ार ्ቚथम प्ቌ/ आवे(cid:13)(cid:4) (cid:4)ो भी ्ቚा् उपहार सोने (cid:4)ा आभूष्ቓ ्ቚा् (cid:4)र लि&या हैं। इस ्ቚ(cid:4)ार उभय 7 प्ቌ(cid:4)ारों (cid:4)ो कि(cid:4)सी भी प्ቌ से कि(cid:4)सी ्ቚ(cid:4)ार (cid:4)ा (cid:4)ोई &ेना- (cid:13)ेना शेष नहीं ”है। This categorical admission by respondent No. 2 in judicial proceedings before a competent court completely demolishes her subsequent allegation in the FIR that dowry articles or jewellery were retained or misappropriated by the petitioner or his family. Learned counsel submitted that once the respondent has herself placed on record such a declaration under oath, the subsequent contradictory allegations in the FIR cannot be relied upon and must be viewed as a clear afterthought, made with mala fide intent to harass the petitioner 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the FIR contains detailed allegations of continuous harassment for dowry, both prior to and after the birth of the child. It is alleged that the complainant was neglected, made to do household chores, and deprived of proper food and care, which affected her health as well as that of the child. It is further submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR has been adequately explained in the complaint itself. The respondent continued to live in the hope of reconciliation and filed the FIR only when she came to know about the divorce petition filed by the petitioner at Kanpur. In matrimonial disputes, such delay is natural and cannot be taken as a ground to discard the complaint. The 8 learned counsel for respondent No.2 also argued that the mutual divorce petition under Section 13-B of Hindi Marriage Act cannot be a ground to quash the FIR, particularly when the respondent had subsequently refused to consent to terms which were unjustified and disproportionate. It is further submitted that the allegations in the FIR, when taken at face value, clearly disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. Reliance is placed on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 73, to contend that this Court should exercise its inherent powers with great caution and sparingly, and not quash proceedings where factual disputes exist. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that considering the material available on record, it cannot