1 - Durgesh Sonkar S/o Revaram Sonkar Aged About 31 Years 2 - Revaram v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Nawagarh District - Bemetara
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:21277-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1324 of 2025 1 - Durgesh Sonkar S/o Revaram Sonkar Aged About 31 Years 2 - Revaram Sonkar S/o Late Kheduram Sonkar Aged About 52 Years 3 - Smt. Kaushilya Bai Sonkar W/o Revaram Sonkar Aged About 47 Years 4 - Ku. Pramila Sonkar D/o Revaram Sonkar Aged About 24 Years 5 - Akhilesh Sonkar S/o Revaram Sonkar Aged About 21 Years All R/o Balani Chowk Mungeli Police Station And District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Nawagarh District - Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Pooja Sonkar W/o Durgesh Sonkar Aged About 24 Years R/o Balani Chowk, Police Station And District - Mungeli (C.G.) Currently Residing at Police Station Baghul Nawagarh District - Bemetara (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Respondents For Petitioners For Respondent/State For Respondent No.2 : Mr.Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Advocate : Mr. Hari Om Rai, Panel Lawyer : None Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08/05/2025 2 1. Heard Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, learned counsel for the
Legal Reasoning
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 11 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 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 12 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 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.” Observing the aforesaid, the 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 petitioner Nos.2 to 5 without being full particulars about date and place that Petitioner No.2 to 5 treated her with cruelty for demand of dowry. There is no specific allegation regarding the petitioner No.2 to 5 except common and general allegations against Petitioner No.2 to 5 that 13 they have demanded cash amount. So far as Petitioner No.1 is concerned, there is specific allegation against him regarding harrassment for demand of dowry. 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 petitioner No.2 to 5, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Section 498A, 506 & 34 of the IPC is made out for prosecuting petitioner No.2 to 5- Revaram Sonkar, Smt. Kaushilya Bai Sonkar, Ku. Pramila Sonkar & Akhilesh Sonkar for the above- stated offences. 16. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the charge-sheet bearing No.70/2024 dated 19/03/2024 filed in Crime No.15/2024 dated 19/01/2024 registered at Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara, for the offences under Section 498-A, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the Criminal Case No.842/2024, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara, is hereby quashed to the extent of petitioner No.2-Revaram Sonkar, Smt. Kaushilya Bai Sonkar, Ku. Pramila Sonkar & Akhilesh Sonkar. Prosecution against her husband petitioner No.1-Durgesh Sonkar shall continue. Concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending against petitioner No.1-Durgesh Sonkar strictly in 14 accordance with law without being influenced by any of these observations made hereinabove. 17. The petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- sd/- sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Ashu
Arguments
petitioners, Mr. Hari Om Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. By this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s): “ 1. Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned First Information Report bearing crime No.15/2024 registered at Police Station Nawagarh, District-Bemetara dated 19.01.2024 and also quash the impugned charge-sheet no.70/2024 dated 19.03.2024 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506 & 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.), in the interest of justice. 2. Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara has taken the cognizance in the Crime No.15/2024 and on the charge- sheet dated 19.03.2024 submitted by the Police Station - Nawagarh, for the offencce punishable under Section 498-A, 506 & 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that the marriage was solemnized between complainant and Durgesh Sonkar (Petitioner no. 1) on 07.06.2023. It is submitted that, after marriage, the complainant was residing with her husband Durgesh 3 Sonkar at her matrimonial house. As per prosecution case after sometime of marriage, she was regularly being mentally and physically assaulted and also threatened to death for leaving her matrimonial house by her husband Durgesh Sonkar (Petitioner no.1), Father in Law- Revaram Sonkar (Petitioner no.2), Mother in Law Kaushilya Bai Sonkar (Petitioner no.3), Sister in Law Pramila Sonkar (Petitioner no.4) and Brother in Law Akhilesh Sonkar (Petitioner no.5) for the demand of dowry. It was further alleged by the prosecution that complainant's mother and father provided Rs. 50,000/- cash to her husband and her family for buying a scooty, however, the cost of scooty is about Rs. 90,000-95,000 for which she was being mentally harassed everyday by her mother- in-law and Father-in-law. It was further alleged by prosecution that, she was residing with her husband thinking that one day he will mend his ways but family members of her husband committed marpeet, abused her with filthy language and threatened to kill her for not giving dowry. Hence, she has lodged First Information Report at Police Station-Nawagarh, Bemetara (C.G). 4. It is the case of the petitioners that on the report of the complainant the matter was referred for the counseling before the Mahila Thana, Bemetara, where complainant stated that she does not want to live with her husband and she wants divorce from her husband Durgesh Sonkar (petitioner no.1), whereas the Durgesh Sonkar (petitioner no. 1) has specifically stated that the complainant wife after sometime of marriage started talking on 4 phone with some other man due to which there used to quarrel between them. Also the family members tried to make understand the complainant but she refused and threatened them to implicate in false case and send them to jail. The petitioner no.1 (husband) in the counseling stated that he wants to live with his wife (complainant). Further petitioner no.1 husband and his family member had never troubled the complainant. After the investigation, Police have filed the impugned charge-sheet dated 19.03.2024 against the present petitioners under sections 4984, 506 & 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 & section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. By order dated 08.04.2024 the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara has taken the cognizance of the charge sheet against the present petitioners for the offence under 498A, 506 & 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 & section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that immediately after the marriage the complainant started talking on mobile phone with some other person and when the petitioner No.1 husband tried to make understand the complainant / wife she used to quarrel with him and his family members. It is further argued that the petitioner No.1 husband was ready to live with the complainant wife and is willing to take her back but the complainant refused to live with him and tried to falsely implicate the petitioners on the basis of a false and fabricated case. It is further argued that no specific month, date or time is mentioned 5 nor any demand has been mentioned only the omnibus statement regarding the harassment for demand of dowry by the petitioners is mentioned in the First Information Report, therefore, the offence under Section 498-A IPC is not made out against the petitioners. 6. On the other hand Mr. Hari Om Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/Respondent submits that once a complaint is received by the police and prima facie cognizable offence is made out, the police is bound to register the FIR and proceed in accordance with law. As such, the police has registered the FIR, investigated the matter and thereafter filed the charge sheet before the learned trial Court and the trial is pending consideration. 7. This court by order dated 17/04/2025 referred the matter to the mediation center and the petitioner No.1 was directed to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- with the mediation center of this Court and the same was directed to be paid to Respondent No.2/Wife. As per the report of the mediation center dated 30.04.2025 the mediation could not be taken place in between the parties. Though the power has been filed by Mr. Harish Lall, Dr. Arpit Lall and Mr. Ayush Lall, Advocates on behalf of Respondent No.2, however, none appears nor any representation is made on behalf of Respondent No.2 when the matter is called out. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 9. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar 6 Pradesh and another1, the 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. 10. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others2 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. 11. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another3, 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 others4 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 1 2 3 4 (2012) 10 SCC 741 (2018) 14 SCC 452 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 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 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 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. 8 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.....” 12. 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 @ 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. 13. 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 9 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. 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 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 10 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 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