Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.09.18 10:45:53 +0530 2025:CGHC:47565-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1880 of 2023 1 - Umakant Sana S/o. Shri Mangal Sana, Aged About 24 Years R/o. Village Dhangaon PS - Ramanujganj, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mangal Sana, S/o. Late Prafull Sana, Aged About 48 Years R/o. Village Dhangaon PS - Ramanujganj, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Meena Sana, W/o. Shri Mangal Sana, Aged About 42 Years R/o. Village Dhangaon PS - Ramanujganj, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Sho Ramanujganj District - Balrampur, Ramanunjganj, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Kavita Sana, W/o. Shri Umakant Sana, Aged About 20 Years R/o. Village Dhangaon At Present R/o. Radhakrishna Nagar PS Balrampur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
any prima facie material constituting an offence under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC. The complainant herself voluntarily left the matrimonial house, as is evident from the sequence of events and despite repeated efforts by petitioner No. 1, including convening a panchayat on 09.12.2021, approaching the Sakhi Centre on 10.12.2021 and again on 21.12.2021, and even filing an application under Section 98 CrPC before the SDM, respondent 5 No. 2 consistently refused to reside with him. In fact, she not only declined to live with the petitioners but also habitually threatened her husband and his family, including his aged parents, with false criminal cases at the instigation of her father and brother. Petitioner No. 1 had, prior to registration of the FIR, submitted a written complaint to the SHO, Balrampur, regarding these threats, but the police took no action thereon. Instead, the police mechanically registered FIR No. 172/2022 on 01.04.2022 and subsequently filed a charge-sheet without conducting a fair investigation or giving the petitioners an opportunity to be heard. The learned District Judge, Balrampur, has already decreed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in favour of petitioner No. 1 on 01.04.2023, directing respondent No. 2 to restore marital relations, which further demonstrates that the criminal proceedings are baseless and instituted only to harass the petitioners. It is also pertinent to mention that during court- referred mediation proceedings between the parties, the petitioners made all genuine efforts for settlement and even paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No. 2 towards amicable resolution, but the mediation failed due to her non-cooperation, further showing her intent to misuse the process of law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law, especially when no offence is made out even if the allegations are taken at face value. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 6 Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 has specifically cautioned against the misuse of Section 498-A IPC as a tool of harassment and directed the police to exercise restraint and conduct preliminary inquiry before arrest or registration of FIR. The Apex Court observed that the provision, being cognizable and non-bailable, is often weaponized by disgruntled wives, leading to the arrest of innocent family members, including aged parents and distant relatives, with conviction rates remaining abysmally low. Despite such binding directions and even the State Government’s own policy requiring police to record statements of both sides before registering FIRs in dowry harassment matters, the authorities in the present case have acted in blatant violation. Hence, the FIR, charge-sheet, and consequential criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 115/2022 deserve to be quashed in the interest of justice 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the Petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of Criminal Case No. 115/2022. However, the grounds urged by them are nothing but a repetition of their defence on merits, which cannot be adjudicated at the stage of quashing. The settled position of law is that if the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet, taken at face value, disclose the commission of an offence, the proceedings ought not to be quashed. Further, the allegations made by respondent No. 2 disclose a clear case under Section 498-A and 34 IPC. 7 Respondent No. 2 was subjected to mental and physical cruelty on account of dowry demands and neglect in her matrimonial home. Despite repeated complaints, the petitioners continued their cruel behaviour, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home. The FIR was registered only after sufficient material was found during preliminary inquiry. The charge-sheet filed by the police further establishes a prima facie case against the Petitioners, and therefore, the proceedings cannot be interfered with at this stage. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) has laid down the limited circumstances in which quashing is permissible. The present case does not fall in any of those categories. Reliance is placed on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 73, to contend that this Court should exercise its inherent powers with great caution and sparingly, and not quash proceedings where factual disputes exist. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that considering the material available on record, it cannot be held that no prima facie case against the petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 498A of the IPC is made out. He would further submit that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is extremely limited as FIR cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient material available on record. 8 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1, the Honb’ble 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 Hon’ble 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 1 2 3 (2012) 10 SCC 741 (2018) 14 SCC 452 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 9 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. 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 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 10 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..…” 12. The Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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 particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal 11 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 12 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. 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 13 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 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 Hon’ble Apex Court quashed the FIR, the charge-sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court. 14 14. In the complaint so made, the complainant/respondent No.2 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 treated her with cruelty for not bringing sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. There is no specific allegation regarding anyone of the petitioners except common and general allegations against all the petitioners that they have demanded dowry. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that respondent No. 2 voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home and misused the provisions of Section 498-A IPC by lodging a false and frivolous complaint only with the intent to harass the Petitioners. The FIR was registered mechanically and without compliance of the settled legal procedure, and the subsequent charge-sheet has been filed without any cogent material on record. The mediation proceedings have already failed despite the bona fide efforts of the petitioners, including payment of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No. 2, and even the decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been passed in favour of petitioner No. 1. In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 16. This Court is mindful of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (Supra) and Arnesh 15 Kumar v. State of Bihar (supra), wherein it has been held that where criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice. The present case falls squarely within those parameters. 17. Accordingly, this Court finds merit in the present petition. The FIR No. 104/2022 dated 01.04.2022 and final report dated 06.04.2022 and the consequential criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No. 115/2022 pending before the trial Court concerned, are hereby quashed and set aside. 18.
Arguments
: Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer and Mr. Abhishek Choubey, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Abhishek Choubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s): “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to allow the application by making an order to quash the crime no. 104/2022 dated 01.04.2022 & quash the final report dated 06.04.2022 and also quash the entire criminal proceeding pending before (JMPS Balrampur place Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) Distrcit Janjgir-Champa as criminal case no. 115/2022 and discharge from the case to the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of Respondent No. 2, namely Smt. Kavita Sana, was solemnized with petitioner No. 1, Shri Umakant Sana, on 01.12.2020 at Village Dhangaon, Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, Respondent No. 2 resided with the petitioner in her matrimonial 3 home. However, within two months of marriage, Respondent No. 2 started expressing her unwillingness to live in the joint family, stating that the house was a mud/soil house and that she would not cook food for her in-laws. She insisted on residing separately in Radhakrishna Nagar at her parental home. Despite repeated explanations and requests by petitioner No. 1, Respondent No. 2 did not agree to reside with the joint family. Thereafter, in order to maintain peace, petitioner No. 1 started residing separately with Respondent No. 2 in a rented accommodation at Maharajganj. Thereafter on account of the ill health of his parents, petitioner No. 1 had to frequently visit his parental house. On 08.11.2021, petitioner No. 1 admitted respondent No. 2 in B.A. classes. On the same date, the brother of respondent No. 2 took her away to her parental house, from where she did not return. Thereafter, on 18.11.2021, petitioner No. 1 went to the parental house of respondent No. 2 and requested her family members to send her back to the matrimonial home, but they refused and also threatened the petitioners with false criminal cases. Despite repeated efforts, including messages sent through WhatsApp, respondent No. 2 did not return to the matrimonial home and continued to reside with her parents. Thereafter, being aggrieved, on 22.03.2022, petitioner No. 1 filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights before the learned District Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), 4 which was registered as Civil Suit No. 10-A/2022. Respondent No. 2 duly appeared in the said case and filed her reply denying the averments of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 01.04.2022, respondent No. 2 lodged a false and frivolous complaint before Police Station Balrampur, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.), pursuant to which FIR No. 172/2022 was registered against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 34 of IPC. After filing of charge-sheet, the learned trial Court registered Criminal Case No. 115/2022 against the petitioners. The FIR was registered without proper investigation and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Even a bare perusal of the charge sheet does not disclose the commission of offences under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC. Therefore, the petitioners have preferred this petition seeking quashing of the entire charge sheet and criminal proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR and charge-sheet are liable to be quashed as the same have been registered in complete disregard of procedure and without
Decision
The petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Manpreet