1- Aishwarya Pandit W/o Shri Tapandeo Sonwani Aged About 28 Years 2- Satish Kumar v. 1- State Of Chhatti
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:28989-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1131 of 2025 1- Aishwarya Pandit W/o Shri Tapandeo Sonwani Aged About 28 Years 2- Satish Kumar Pandit S/o Shri Sampat Lal Pandit Aged About 56 Years 3- Rinki Pandit W/o Shri Satish Kumar Pandit Aged About 50 Years 4- Siddharth Pandit S/o Shri Satish Kumar Pandit Aged About 33 Years 5- Rajiv Pandit S/o Shri Satish Kumar Pandit Aged About 30 Years All R/o House No. 26 New Pension Bada Near Polytechnic College And Water Tank Ps City Kotwali Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) Versus 1- State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO Police Station Mujgahan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2- Tapandeo Sonwani S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Sonwani Aged About 30 Years R/o Behind Housing Board Colony Near Water Tank (Paani Tanki) 2, Sejbahar Ps Mujgahan District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Mr. Rahul Jha, Advocate. : CRMP No. 1141 of 2024 1- Tapandeo Sonwani S/o Ashok Kumar Sonwani Aged About 29 Years R/o 563 Lig, Housing Board Colony, Sejbahar, Raipur, P.S. Mujgahan, District Raipur (C.G.) 2- Ashok Kumar Sonwani S/o Late G.L. Sonwani Aged About 55 Years R/o 563 Lig, Housing Board Colony, Sejbahar, Raipur, P.S. Mujgahan, District Raipur (C.G.) 2
Legal Reasoning
matter and after prima facie finding offence being made out against the 6 petitioners-wife as well as the petitioner-husband, FIR was registered and the matter is under investigation. 11 According to Mr. Jha, the petitioners-Tapandeo Sonwani and his parents have already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned trial Court. 12 This Court, vide order dated 11.04.2025 {in Cr.M.P. No. 1131/2025} had referred the dispute involved between the parties to the Medication Centre of this Court, being a matrimonial dispute so that amicable settlement could be arrived at between them and while referring the matter, this Court had stayed the further proceedings of both the FIRs. As per the ofÏce note dated 01.05.2025, the mediation proceedings between the parties have failed and closed as ‘not settled’. 13 We have also gone through the FIRs lodged both by the husband- Tapandeo Sonwani and wife-Aishwarya Pandit. Admittedly, there exists some dispute between the parties being husband and wife and the subsequent FIR lodged by the husband appears to be in response to the FIR lodged by the petitioner-wife and in both the FIRs, there appears to be an attempt by the complainants to rope each other’s family members also without any rhyme or reason. 14 In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar 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. 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 7 15 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. 16 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 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. 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 8 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. 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.....” 17 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. 18 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 9 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 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 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 10 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 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 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 11 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. 19 In Cr.M.P. No. 1141/2024, in the complaint so made, the complainant- wife has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners-husband and his family members without there being full particulars about date and place that all the petitioners including the petitioner No. 1-husband treated her with cruelty for not giving sufÏcient dowry. There is no specific allegation regarding anyone of the petitioners except common and general allegations that they demanded dowry. So far as Cr.M.P. No. 1131/2025 is concerned, the FIR lodged by the respondent No. 2-husband is nothing but an attempt to rope all the family members of the petitioner-wife as it is the case of the husband himself that he alongwith his wife alongwith their child were residing in a rented house and the household belongings is alleged to have been 12 taken by her wife. There appears to be no prima facie evidence with regard to involvement of her parents in the alleged theft. 20 Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, material available on record, perusing the FIRs 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 498-A and 34 of the IPC is made out for prosecuting petitioner No.2-Ashok Kumar Sonwani and petitioner No. 3- Smt. Sushma Sonwani. 21 As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, {in Cr.M.P. No. 1141/2024} the FIR bearing Crime No. 0151/2023, dated 28.12.2023, registered at Police Station, Mahila thana, Raipur, for the offences under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC, so far it relates to petitioner No. 2-Ashok Kumar Sonwani and petitioner No. 3-Smt. Sushma Sonwani, and the consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed. However, the investigation against the husband-petitioner No. 1-Tapandeo Sonwani shall continue. 22 So far as Cr.M.P. No. 1131/2025, is concerned, the FIR bearing Crime No. 0058/2025, dated 10.03.2025, for the offences under Sections 34, 380 and 454 IPC, so far it relates to petitioner No. 2-Satish Kumar Pandit, petitioner No. 3-Rinki Pandit, petitioner No. 4-Siddharth Pandit and petitioner No. 5-Rajiv Pandit, and the consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed. However, the investigation against the wife-petitioner No. 1-Aishwarya Pandit shall continue. 23 In both the above matters, the Investigating OfÏcer concerned shall investigate the matters against the husband Tapandeo Sonwani and 13 wife-Aishwarya Pandit, strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above. 24 As a result, both the above petitions stand partly allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.07.03 11:23:13 +0530
Arguments
3 - Smt. Sushma Sonwani W/o Shri Ashok Kumar Sonwani Aged About 48 Years R/o 563 Lig, Housing Board Colony, Sejbahar, Raipur, P.S. Mujgahan, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Mahila Thana, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Aishwarya Pandit W/o Shri Tapandeo Sonwani Aged About 28 Years R/o Qrt. No. 26, Near Polytechnic College, New Pension Bada Colony, Raipur, P.S. City Kotwali, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Rahul Jha, Advocate. : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30/06/2025 1 Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 and Mr. Rahul Jha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 {in Cr.M.P. No. 1131/2025} and Mr. Rahul Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 and Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 {in Cr.M.P. No. 1141/2024}. 2 In Cr.M.P. No. 1131/2025, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR bearing Crime No. 0058/2025, registered at Police Station, Mujgahan, District Raipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 380 and 454 of 3 the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) lodged on 10.03.2025 on the basis of order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner No. 1, who is the wife of respondent No. 2, alongwith her other family members, have illegally taken the household belongings and as such, committed an offence of theft. 3 In Cr.M.P. No. 1141/2024, the petitioner No. 1-husband, petitioner No. 2, father-in-law and petitioner No. 3-mother-in-law of respondent No. 2, have filed this petition seeking quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 0151/2023, registered at Police Station, Mahila Thana, District Raipur, for the offences under Section 498-A and 34 of the IPC. 4 Admitted facts in both the cases are that Aishwarya Pandit {respondent No. 2 in Cr.M.P. No. 1141/2024 and petitioner No. 1 in Cr.M.P. No. 1131/2025} was married to Tapandeo Sonwani {petitioner No. 1 in Cr.M.P. No. 1141/2024 and respondent No. 2 in Cr.M.P. No. 1131/2025} on 15.112.2021 at Arya Samaj Temple, Sanjay Nagar, Tikrapara, Raipur. The family of both the husband and wife were not aware of the said fact and they started living in a rented house. From their wedlock a premature boy child was born on 19.01.2023. 5 FIR bearing Crime No. 0151/2023, dated 28.12.2023 was lodged by the wife-Ashiwarya Pandit against her husband-Tapandeo Sonwani, his parents, Ashok Kumar Sonwani and Smt. Sushma Sonwani and his sister-Manvi Sonwani, at Police Station, Mahila Thana, Raipur, for the offences under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC, stating that their marriage was an inter-caste marriage and after the marriage, her husband-Tapandeo Sonwani and his family members treated the wife- Ashwarya Pandit with cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry. It was 4 further alleged that the wife-Aishwarya Pandit was forced to abort the child when she was pregnant and when she refused, she was assaulted and abused and demanded dowry of Rs. 20 Lakhs. 6 Another FIR was lodged by the husband-Tapandeo Sonwani at Police Station, Mujgahan, District Raipur, bearing Crime No. 0058/2025 on 10.03.2025 for the offences under Sections 34, 380 and 454 of the IPC against his wife-Aishwarya Pandit and her family members, namely, Satish Kumar Pandit, Rinki Pandit, Siddharth Pandit and Rajiv Pandit, alleging that they all, in an illegal manner, took the household belongings of Tapandeo Sonwani and as such, they had committed offence of theft. 7 Mr. Rahul Jha, learned counsel appearing for the husband-Tapandeo Sonwani and his parents, submit that on a notice being issued by the police from Mahila Thana, Raipur, the husband appeared on 29.07.2023 but the wife-Aishwarya Pandit herself remained absent. Thereafter, both the parties were present on 14.08.2023 and the matter was again fixed for 28.08.2023 on which date also, the wife-Aishwarya Pandit did not appear. Thereafter, the wife-Aishwarya Pandit did not appear on various dates for counselling and all of a sudden, FIR bearing Crime No. 151/2023 was registered against the husband-Tapandeo Sonwani and his parents including his sister alleging that they had treated the wife- Aishwarya Pandit with cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry. 8 Mr. Jha further submits that the petitioner-husband and his family members have been falsely implicated in this case. The respondent-wife has misused the process of law and had lodged a false case of demand of dowry just to harass them. The husband was willing to resolve the petty family dispute mutually but the respondent-wife never attended the counselling proceedings. The counselling team never disclosed failure of 5 counselling or the reasons. The petitioners have been suffering mental harassment without there being any fault. The respondent-wife is of a dominating nature and she does not want to listen to any of the elders and lead life according to her own wishes. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it can be easily assessed that the FIR in question is vindictive and sheer abuse of process of law is been carried out. A perusal of the FIR shows that only general and omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioners and only to satisfy the ego and personal grudges she has filed the FIR, and if the criminal prosecution is to be continued then it will amount to miscarriage of justice and misuse of law. The ingredient of Section 498-A / 34 is not made out against the petitioners and hence the entire FIR is liable to be quashed. 9 Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- Aishwarya Pandit and her family members {in Cr.M.P. No. 1131/2025} submits FIR bearing crime No. 0058/2025 was lodged by the husband- Tapandeo Sonwani in retaliation to the FIR lodged by the wife- Aishwarya Pandit and totally false and bogus accusations have been made. No investigation was conducted before registration of the FIR and the said FIR has been lodged just to pressurize the petitioners. The respondent-husband has not proved with any documentary evidence that the properties which were said to be stolen belonged solely to him and as such, the petition filed by the petitioner-Aishwarya Pandit, deserves to be allowed and the FIR in question deserves to be quashed. 10 On the other hand, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned counsel for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that the police has investigated the