AMARDEEP v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

2 - Smt. Sugandha Das W/o Shri Sukant Das Aged About 30 Years R/o Dharampura Number 3, Jagdalpur, Thana - Kotwali Jagdalpur, Distt. Baster (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents-State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Chief Justice , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04 .08 .2025

1. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and the Chargesheet of Crime No. 94/2024 as well as Criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 942/2024 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Jagdalpur, Distt. Baster (C.G.) against the petitioners may kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice.”

2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that petitioners herein are the husband, father-in-law, sister-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively of the respondent No.2/complainant. Marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2/complainant was solemnized on 05/07/2023 as per the Hindu Law and customs. It is alleged that after about two months of marriage, the petitioners started harassing her in the form of less dowry and making taunts that she did not bring other gifted items and money with her. It is further alleged that the petitioners used to ask her to bring Rs. 5.00 lacs. Family meetings were convened to resolve their dispute, but the petitioners still demanded Rs.5 lacs in the form of dowry and the petitioner No.2, who is the father-in-law, also tried to outrage the 3 modesty of complainant. Based on above facts, complainant lodged a report against the petitioners under Section 354, 498-A, 34 of the IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 was to harass the petitioners including the sister-in-law (Petitioner No.3), who is residing with her husband at Bangalore and not resides with the petitioners No.1, 2 & 4 herein. The prosecution did not adduce any evidence that the petitioners have demanded any amount in the form of dowry or ill treated her with cruelty, which can attract the provisions of Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act or Section 498-A of IPC. Learned counsel further submits that vide order dated 08/07/2024, this Court directed to send the matter for mediation and also directed the petitioner No.1/husband to deposit Rs.50,000/- before the mediation center and in compliance of the same, the petitioner appeared before the mediation center and deposit Rs.50,000/-. But, the respondent No.2/complainant has not appeared before the mediation center to settle their dispute. Moreover, the petitioner No.1 has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Court.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant would submit that the petitioners have committed the alleged offence of demand of dowry and petitioner No.2 tried to outrage her modesty, hence, the complainant is not intrusted for mediation with the petitioners. 4

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents.

6. The Supreme Court in the mater of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others1 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: - “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 5 (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 6

103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”

7. Chapter XXA of the IPC deals with offence of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband. Section 498A of the IPC defines the offence of cruelty as under:- “498 A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

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- 2 (2012) 10 SCC 741 7 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 aforesaid offence, 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 others 3 their 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.

10. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Supreme Court 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, 34 of the IPC would not be justified as cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process

11. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case; despite the fact that the matter was referred to the Mediation Center of this Court vide order dated 08/07/2024 to settle their dispute; though the petitioner No.1/husband has deposited 3 (2018) 14 SCC 452 8 Rs.50,000/- before the Mediation Center, but respondent no.2/complainant did not appear before the mediation center, it appears that the respondent No.2/complainant does not wish to settle her dispute; and particularly considering that as there is no sufficient material available on record to make out a prima facie case against the petitioners which could attract the elements of the aforesaid offence, the FIR bearing Crime No.0094/2024 dated 13/02/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali Jagdalpur, District:Bastar, Chhattisgarh for the offence under Sections 354, 498-A, 34 of IPC, charge-sheet No.155/2024 dated 17/03/2024 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 942/2024 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) are quashed.

12. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep/Shoaib