Afr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:4510 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 970 of 2023 1 - Neetu Vaishnav @ Minni W/o Rakesh Vaishnav Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Shriram Health Club, Radha Krishna Mandir, Darri Para .........Accused. 2 - Rakesh Vaishnav S/o Shankar Vaishnav Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Shriram Health Club, Radha Krishna Mandir, Darri Para, District : Kawardha Chhattisgarh (Kabirdham), 3 - Raghavendra Vaishnav S/o Jhumuk Das Vaishnav Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Tulsi Tahsil- Tilda, Police Station Tilda- Nevra, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Gayatri Vaishnav W/o Raghavendra Vaishnav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Tulsi Tahsil- Tilda, Police Station Tilda- Nevra, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Kiran Vaishnav D/o Raghavendra Vaishnav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Tulsi Tahsil- Tilda, Police Station Tilda- Nevra, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Sudha Vaishnav @ Harshmani W/o Bhishma Kumar Vaishnav Aged About 25 Years D/o Girendra Das Vaishnav R/o New Construction Colony, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Police Station- Tarbahar, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur ..........Complainant., Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners For Respondent No.1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Shashank Upadhyay, Advocate Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate : : Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board 2 24.01.2025 1. The present petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the following prayer:- “It is therefore most humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending in Criminal MJC No. 1021/2022 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bilaspur (C.G.) so far it relates to the present petitioners in the interest of justice” 2. The petitioner No. 1 is sister-in-law (Nanad), petitioner No. 2 is brother-in-law (Nandoi), petitioner No. 3 is uncle-in-law, petitioner No. 4 is aunt-in-law and petitioner No. 5 is sister-in-law (daughter of petitioner No. 3 & 4) of the complainant/respondent. 3. Case of the prosecution, as per first information report is that the marriage of respondent was performed with Bhishma Kumar Vaishnav @ Raju on 03.07.2021 according to Hindu rites and rituals and after marriage, she came her matrimonial house for performing matrimonial obligations, but due to unbalance, dispute arose between the respondent and her matrimonial family members and on account of which, the respondent left her matrimonial house and she lodged report at Police Station, where the offence under Section 498- A, 34 of IPC have been registered against the accused including 3 petitioners bearing crime No. 382/2014 and in the said crime, the petitioners have been granted anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are not living with matrimonial family members of the respondent and they are living separately in District Kabirdham and District Raipur and matrimonial house of the respondent/claimant is situated at Mohan Nagar District Durg. Therefore there is no possibility to give ill treatment to the complainant by the petitioners and there is also no allegation of demand of dowry and cruelty due to such demand against the present petitioners. No offence under Section 498A IPC is made out as no role is attributed by the petitioners in causing any kind of physical or mental harassment to the complainant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal report in (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335) whereby it has held that High Court can quash the FIR to protect the accused from malicious prosecution. 5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this High Court in the matter of Manoj Singh V. State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRMP No. 2637/2019, whereby the Division Bench has held in para 21 as under:- 21 In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others V. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 their 4 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. 6. Learned State counsel for respondent No. 1 would submit that after due investigation the petitioners have been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and prima-facie material collected are sufÏcient to put the petitioner at trial. They would further submit that taking into consideration the material available on record, it cannot be held that no prima-facie case against the petitioners are made out. They would also submit that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC is extremely limited as FIR and charge-sheet cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufÏcient evidence available on record to put the accused person to trial. They would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court in the matters of "State of Harayana Vs. Bhajan Lal" reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Orissa & Ors. Versus Ujjal Kumar Burdhan reproted in (2012) 4 SCC 547 and also Jeffrey J. Diermeier & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 243. In view of the abovementioned 5 judgments, the instant petition under Section 482 may not be maintainable as no facts and grounds have been urged by the petitioner warranting any interference by Hon'ble court. The instant petition deserves to be dismissed being baseless and devoid of merits. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and prayers made in the petition and documents available on record. 8. It is admitted facts that written complaint was made by respondent No.1- Smt Sudha Vaishnav @ Harshmani in which it has been alleged that from the very beginning of the marriage, the petitioner along with her husband and her in-laws have physically and mentally tortured the complainant and assaulted her, hence, she has left the house of the husband. 9. Perusal of the complainant it reflects that the petitioners are relatives and in contact with Bhishm Kumar Vaishnav, Gajanand Vaishnav and Kamini Vaishnav i.e. husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the respondent. It is apparent from the address of the petitioners in Criminal MJC No. 1021/2022 before the JMFC Bilaspur as well as even from the cause title of this petition that the petitioners No. 1 & 2 are residing at District Kabirdham and Petitioners No. 3, 4 & 5 are residing at District Raipur, whereas husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the respondent are residing at Mohan Nagar Durg, District Durg. The main allegation against the husband, mother-in- 6 law and father-in-law. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the criminal Courts while proceeding against relatives of victim’s husband should be careful in proceeding against distant relatives in crime pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry and 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 and the allegation levelled against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC are general and bald. 10. In view of above, so far as the petitioners are concerned, criminal proceeding in criminal MJC No. 1021/2022 pending before the Court of JMFC Bilasur only against the present petitioners namely Neetu Vaishnav, Rakesh Vaishnav, Raghvendra Vaishnav, Gayatri Vaishnav and Kiran Vaishnav is set aside/quashed. 11. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby
Decision
allowed and disposed of. 12. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned Court for necessary information and its compliance. Jyoti sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge