Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:47997-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3259 of 2024 Binod Kumar Dhangada Majhi S/o Late Bisheswar Dhangada Majhi Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Chilchila, P.O. Brahman Chhendia, P.S. Dharamgarh, Dist. Kalahandi, (Odisha) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Deobhogh District- Gariyabandh, C.G. 2 - Smt. Divya Pradhan D/o Liladhar Pradhan Aged About 44 Years R/o Village- Deobhog, Pradhanpara, Post- Deobhog P.S.- Deobhog, Dist.- Gariyabandh, C.G. For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil S. Pandey alongwith Mr. Ashish For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2
Legal Reasoning
the matter and after prima facie finding offence being made out against the petitioners, FIR was registered and the charge sheet has also been filed and now it is for the trial Court concerned to proceed with the matter. 8 Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent/wife submits that this petition deserves to be dismissed as there is ample evidence on record to hold the petitioner guilty of the offence. The petitioner demanded a car in dowry and has also harassed the respondent-wife mentally and physically. The bank statement shows that money was transferred from the account of mother of the respondent/wife to the account of the petitioner. In fact, the respondent-wife has tried to save their nuptial knot but the petitioner instead of fulfilling his obligations, has meted the respondent with cruelty. 5 9 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10 This Court, vide order dated 03.12.2024 had directed the parties to appear before the High Court Mediation Centre to explore the possibilities of amicable settlement, however, from the report of the Mediator, it transpires that the mediation proceedings between the parties have failed. 11 One of the important aspect of the matter is that after 12 years of their marriage, the FIR was lodged by the respondent/wife and the petitioner had also alleged that the respondent/wife was having a relationship out of the marriage with some other person. As soon as the petitioner filed the divorce petition, the FIR came to be lodged and not before that. 12 In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another1, 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 others2 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 1 2 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 6 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 indicate that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed with a view to harass the applicants.....” 13 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 and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another3, 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. 3 (2012) 10 SCC 741 7 14 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: “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 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 8 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 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. 15 In the complaint so made, the complainant/respondent No. 2 has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioner without there being full particulars about date and place that the including the petitioner-husband treated her with cruelty for not giving sufÏcient dowry. Only common and general allegations have been levelled against the 9 petitioner that he demanded a car, when the fact of the matter is that their marriage was solemnized 12 years ago and the petitioner himself is an employee of the Central Government. The FIR was lodged only after filing of divorce petition by the petitioner and one of the allegation against the respondent-wife in the divorce petition was that the respondent -wife was having a relationship out of the marriage. 16 In Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Another {(2025) 3 SCC 756}, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. The Court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out prima facie whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole purpose of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute. 17 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 petitioner, and further that the FIR was lodged only after 12 years of the marriage when the petitioner filed a divorce petition, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Section 489A of the IPC against the petitioner. The parties have already been granted decree of divorce and even before their divorce, they had been residing separately, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be a futile exercise. 10 18 As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, the charge sheet dated 66/2024, dated 19.02.2024 under Section 498A of the IPC filed by the Police of Police Station, Deobhog, District Gariyaband and the consequential criminal proceedings being Criminal Case No. 481/2024, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deobhog, District Gariyaband, are quashed. 19 As a result, this petition stands allowed. 20 Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned forthwith, for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.09.22 19:21:25 +0530
Arguments
: Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer : Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate. Gangwani, Advocates. ... Respondent(s) Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18/09/2025 1 Heard Mr. Anil S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2 2 By this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks quashing of the charge sheet bearing No. 66/2024, dated 19.02.2024 for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, filed by Police of Police Station, Deobhog, District Gariyaband, and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deobhog, District Gariyaband, in Criminal Case No. 481/2024, against the petitioner. 3 The facts, as projected by the petitioners, are that the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 2 took place on dated 20.06.2011 in Chilchila, Dharamgarh, District Kalahandi, Orissa, as per prevailing Hindu customs and rituals. The petitioner was serving as a Inspector in the Department of Income Tax and posted at Raipur, Chhattisgarh and the respondent-wife was serving as Teacher (at present in the Swami Atmannand Government English Medium Higher Secondary School at Deobhog). The couple was blessed with a male child, who is about 10 years old and at present has been residing with his mother and prosecuting his study in Class-V in I Lnessie Missionary School, at-Kutru. The respondent No. 2-wife filed a complaint dated 30.10.2023 before respondent No. 1 alleging that the petitioner/husband, had assaulted her and was demanding a new car in dowry. Subsequently, an FIR bearing No. 385/2023 dated 30.10.2023 was registered at Police Station Deobhog, District-Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, under Sections 498A of the IPC. Subsequently, a charge-sheet bearing No. 66/2024 dated 19.02.2024 was filed the Police before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Deobhog, District-Gariyaband and accordingly, a criminal case, being No. 481/2024 was registered in the Court of JMFC, Devbhog, District Gariyaband. 4 Mr. Anil S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after 3 the marriage, the respondent No. 2 stayed for few weeks in her parental house. The petitioner used to drop and pick her up from the school, which is about 15 K.M., away from his native place. Further, the petitioner offered his wife to visit to a hill station, wherein they could spend time together and augment the marital bond to which the respondent-wife declined by citing her workload in the school. Even after spending few weeks together, there was no consummation between the couple, as the respondent maintained distance from her husband both physically and emotionally. Such odd conduct and behavior of respondent-wife created doubt in the mind of the petitioner and his dream of enjoyable couple life with his wife was shattered. About three months later, the respondent- wife informed the petitioner that she was facing difÏculties in travelling to her work place and wanted to stay at her maternal home at Deobhog for her convenience to attend her school. The petitioner suggested her to explore the opportunities of taking transfer to his place of posting i.e. Raipur, so as to both of them can spend more time together. But surprisingly, the respondent-wife became annoyed and asked the petitioner either to leave his job or accommodate with her to the current arrangement. The petitioner, on every weekend, visited Village Deobhog so as to built up an emotional bondage with the respondent, the respondent wife kept maintaining distance with her husband. 5 Mr. Pandey further submits that the respondent-wife had relationship with some other person out of the marriage even prior to their marriage but they could not marry because of caste issue. Even when the said situation was informed by the petitioner to his in-laws, they declined to intervene. Despite making efforts, the relationship between the husband and wife did not worked. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition seeking 4 decree of divorce before the learned Family Court, Bhawanipatna, District Kalahandi, Odisha and after 57 days of the filing of the divorce petition, the respondent-wife lodged the complaint alleging that she was treated with cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry. The police registered the offence and after investigation, filed charge sheet also against the petitioner. 6 According to Mr. Pandey, this is a clear abuse of process of law as from the very beginning of their marriage, there was no intention of the respondent-wife to lead a normal matrimonial life with the petitioner and as such, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in case of demand of dowry. After 12 years of their marriage, such a frivolous case of dowry has been lodged by the respondent-wife. The learned Family Court, Bhawanipatna, has passed a decree of divorce on 08.12.2023. 7 On the other hand, Mr. Swajit Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 submits that that the police has investigated