Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2025:CGHC:24777-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1482 of 2025 1 - Sachin Sharma S/o Late K.P. Sharma Aged About 43 Years R/o Quarter No. 167/b, Road No. 18 Township, Dalli Rajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Manoj Sharma S/o Late K.P. Sharma Aged About 46 Years R/o Quarter No. 167/b, Road No. 18 Township, Dalli Rajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sanjeev Sharma S/o Late K.P. Sharma Aged About 50 Years R/o Quarter No. 5/c, Road No. 7, Sector 4, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Kamla Sharma W/o Mahesh Sharma Aged About 52 Years R/o House No. 873, Stret No. 13, Shanti Nagar, Supela, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Address Wrongly Mentioned In The First Page Of The Certified Copy/Annexure P1) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Isha Vishwakarma D/o Krishna Kumar Vishwakarma Aged About 33 Years R/o H-02, Plot No. 419/2 Street No. 01, Ashish Nagar West, Risali, Bhilai, Newai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Shakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2/complainant : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Bibhu Datta Guru Chief Justice , Judge 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17 . 06 .202 5 1.
Legal Reasoning
pressurize the petitioners. There is no prima facie case made out against the petitioners, and the allegations are vague, baseless, and motivated by personal vendetta. He also submitted the allegations have been deliberately fabricated to seek revenge for the petitioner's refusal to marry, which was solely due to his father's deteriorating health. The petitioners never sought any dowry or financial benefits from the complainant or her family. The 5 present FIR is a calculated move to recover the alleged wedding expenses, which were unilaterally incurred by the complainant despite the petitioner's reluctance due to personal family circumstances. He also submitted that as the petitioners’ father, aged about 83 years, was critically ill and required constant medical attention, the petitioners initially requested the complainant's family to postpone the wedding; however, when his father's health worsened, he made the difficult decision to call off the marriage entirely. This was done purely out of personal responsibility and not due to any ill motive. He also submitted that the complainant has already with another person. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No.1/State, would submit that after due investigation, the petitioners have been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and prima-facie material collected are sufficient to put the petitioners at trial and they are standing trial also and considering the material available on record, it cannot be held that no prima-facie case against the petitioners for standing trial is made out. He would further 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 sufficient evidence available on record to put the accused persons to trial. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Taramani Parakh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 6 others1 to buttress his submission that allegation of cruelty is question of fact to be established during trial, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, would submit that after due investigation, the jurisdictional police has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners in which there are serious allegations against the petitioners for demand of dowry. He would further submit that all submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners relate to question of fact, that can be considered during the course of trial and that cannot be considered at this stage and that too in proceeding under Section 482 CrPC as all ingredients of the aforesaid offences are available to put the petitioners to trial, as such, it is the case where the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another2, 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 1 2 (2015) 11 SCC 260 (2012) 10 SCC 741 7 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC would not be justified as cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process. 9. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others3 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. 10. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another4, 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 others5 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 3 4 5 (2018) 14 SCC 452 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 8 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. 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 9 indicate that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed with a view to harass the applicants.....” 11. 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. 12. 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: 13. “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 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 10 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. 14. 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. 15. 27. xxx xxx xxx 16. 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, 11 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 family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. 17. 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. 12 However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case. 18. 30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows: 19. “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.” 20. 31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to 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 13 allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 21. 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. 22. In the complaint so made, the complainant has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners without being full particulars about date and place that all the petitioners including the husband demanded for dowry. There is no specific allegation regarding anyone of the petitioners except common and general allegations against all the petitioners that they have demanded cash amount. 23. 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 petitioners and further 14 considering the fact that the complainant / respondent No.2 has already married with another person, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is made out against the petitioners. 24. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 CrPC is allowed and Criminal Case No.6450/2023 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (Chhattisgarh) arising out of Crime No.12/2023 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Durg, District Durg for offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra
Arguments
Heard Mr. Shikhar Bhaktiyar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shakib Amhed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 / complainant. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) with the following reliefs :- “A) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly quash and set-a- side the F.I.R. No.12/2023, Dated:23/01/2023, for the offences u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,, 1961, registered with P.S. Mahila Thana, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, in the interest of Justice. B) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire charge-sheet for the offences u/s 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act, 1961, filed against the petitioners on dated 17/05/2023 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Criminal case no. 6450/2023 in the interest of justice. C) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 17/05/2023 whereby the ld. judicial magistrate first class has accepted the charge sheet and taken cognizance against the petitioners. D) That any other relief Hon'ble Court deems feet may also be granted.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 is a law-abiding 3 citizen and an employee of NMDC Ltd., Bacheli, District Dantewada and petitioner No.2 and 3 are the brothers of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.4 is the elder sister of petitioner No.1. On 14.07.2022, a matrimonial alliance was proposed and mutually agreed upon between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2/complainant. Thereafter, on 01.08.2022, an engagement ceremony was solemnized at Hotel Central Park, Bhilai, in the presence of both families and relatives. Subsequent to the engagement, the petitioner No.1 father’s health began to deteriorate, causing immense distress to the petitioners. Due to the mental and emotional strain of the situation, the petitioner No.1 decided to call off the marriage and accordingly informed the father of the respondent No. 2 on 02.09.2022, expressing his inability to proceed with the marriage. Despite the petitioner No. 1’s clear and unequivocal communication, the complainant’s family continued to exert undue pressure on the petitioner No.1 and his family to proceed with the marriage and without the petitioner’s consent, the complainant family went ahead and printed wedding invitation cards and began their distribution. Further, they allegedly sought to coerce the petitioner No.1 and his family into marriage by involving third parties and creating an environment of fear and distress. In light of the complainant’s family relentless pressure and intimidation, the petitioner No. 1 and his family firmly decided to terminate the matrimonial alliance 4 and wished to convey their decision amicably to the complainant’s family. However, there was a consent apprehension that the complainant family might resort to threats, coercion or even legal harassment against the petitioner No.1 and his family. The petitioner No.1 has strong reasons to believe that the complainant’s family may take coercive actions to force him into marriage and thus, the petitioner No.1 has made a complaint to the Police Station Dalli Rajhara and also to the Police Station Bacheli, Dantewada dated 21.11.2022. Thereafter, the complainant on 08.12.2022 has lodged complaint before the Mahila Thana Bhilai, levying allegation of demand of dowry. After lodging of the complaint, the impugned FIR was registered against the petitioners and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed and case is pending as Criminal Case No. 6450 of 2023 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.). Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners submitted that impugned FIR has been lodged with the sole intent to harass and