Chattisgarh High Court
Hemant Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15522-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2922 of 2025
1 - Hemant Kumar S/o Devachand Das Aged About 36 Years R/o Village
Kanya Parisar Road Behind Dayanidhi Hopital Bishunpur P.S Gandhinagar,
Distt. Surguja (C.G.)
2 - Smt. Vimla W/o Devchand Das Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Kanya
Parisar Road Behind Dayanidhi Hopital Bishunpur P.S Gandhinagar, Distt.
Surguja (C.G.)
3 - Devchand Das S/o Late Dhannu Das Aged About 63 Years R/o Village
Kanya Parisar Road Behind Dayanidhi Hopital Bishunpur P.S Gandhinagar,
Distt. Surguja (C.G.)
4 - Yamini Das W/o Sirjan Das Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Kanya
Parisar Road Behind Dayanidhi Hopital Bishunpur P.S Gandhinagar, Distt.
Surguja (C.G.)
5 - Smt. Dipti Das D/o Devchand Das Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kanya
Parisar Road Behind Dayanidhi Hopital Bishunpur P.S Gandhinagar, Distt.
Surguja (C.G.)
6 - Shashank Das S/o Devchand Das Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kanya
VED Parisar Road Behind Dayanidhi Hopital Bishunpur P.S Gandhinagar, Distt.
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN Surguja (C.G.)
Digitally signed ... Petitioners
by VED
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Date: 2026.04.09 versus
18:23:13 +0530
2
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Sho, Police Station- Sitapur,
Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.)
2 - Smt. Gulabi Das W/o Hemant Kumar Aged About 36 Years R/o Village-
Amatoli, Police Station- Sitapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
06/04/2026
1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent
No.1/State and Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, learned counsel for Respondent
No.2/complainant.
2. The present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners with the following
prayer:
“I. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased
to allow the instant petition under section 528 of
BNSS 2023 filed by the petitioners.
3
II. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased
to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 349/2024
registered on dated 01.12.2024 at Police Station –
Sitapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) for the offence
under section 85, 296, 115(2) of BNS.
III. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased
to quash entire charge sheet filed on dated
05.07.2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Sitapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.)
(Annexure P-1) under section 85, 296, 115(2) of
BNS.
IV. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased
to quash the impugned order dated 05.07.2025
(Annexure P-2) whereby the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, Distt. Surguja
(C.G.) has taken cognizance of the impugned
charge sheet and registered the impugned
criminal proceeding as Criminal Case No.
1458/2025 against the petitioners.”
3. The present case arises out of a matrimonial dispute between Petitioner
No.1 (husband) and Respondent No.2/complainant (wife), whose
marriage was solemnized on 12.06.2023 as per Hindu rites and
customs, and out of the wedlock, one male child was born. As per the
prosecution case, the respondent No.2 initially resided at her
matrimonial home and the relations between the parties remained
cordial for a brief period of about three months; however, thereafter,
allegations have been made regarding change in behaviour of the
petitioners and demand of dowry in the form of an air-conditioner,
coupled with mental and physical harassment. On the basis of such
allegations, the respondent No.2 lodged a written report on 01.12.2024
at Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja, leading to registration of FIR
bearing Crime No. 349/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections
115(2), 296 and 85 of the B.N.S. Upon completion of investigation, the
4
police filed charge-sheet dated 05.07.2025 before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, which has been registered as Criminal
Case No. 1458/2025, and cognizance has been taken by the learned
trial Court vide order dated 05.07.2025, which is under challenge in the
present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR and
consequential proceedings are nothing but a gross abuse of the
process of law, as the same have been initiated on the basis of false
and concocted allegations with an ulterior motive to harass the
petitioners. It is contended that a bare perusal of the FIR and the
charge-sheet would reveal that the allegations made therein are
general and omnibus in nature, without specifying any particular
instance of demand of dowry or act of cruelty attributable to the
individual petitioners. It is further submitted that except for bald
allegations regarding demand of an air-conditioner, no material
particulars such as date, time or specific overt acts have been
disclosed, thereby rendering the prosecution case inherently
improbable. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3,
being aged parents, and petitioner Nos.4 to 6, who are residing
separately on account of their studies and profession, have been falsely
implicated without any basis. It is also submitted that prior to the
present FIR, the respondent No.2 had approached the Mahila Thana,
Ambikapur, where during counselling she had expressed unwillingness
to take any action, however, subsequently, with mala fide intention, she
lodged the present FIR on false and fabricated grounds. Thus, the
5
continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing
but an abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed.
******* He further submits that in compliance of the order dated
18.09.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court, the matter was referred to the
Mediation Centre; however, the mediation proceedings have failed and
no settlement could be arrived at between the parties.
******* He would place reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another1, Preeti Gupta and another v. State of
Jharkhand and another2, Swapnil v. State of Madhya Pradesh 3,
Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 4 (Para-24),
Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 5,
Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and
others6 and Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh 7 to contend that in
cases involving vague and omnibus allegations, particularly against
relatives of the husband, the criminal proceedings deserve to be
quashed.
5. Learned State counsel would submit that the impugned FIR and the
consequential proceedings have been initiated on the basis of a written
complaint disclosing commission of cognizable offences, and upon due
investigation, sufficient material has been collected against the
1 (2012) 10 SCC 741
2 (2010) 7 SCC 667
3 (2014) 13 SCC 567
4 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620
5 (2018) 10 SCC 472
6 (2022) 6 SCC 599
7 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083
6
petitioners, culminating into filing of the charge-sheet before the
competent Court. It is submitted that the allegations made by the
complainant disclose a prima facie case under the relevant provisions
of the B.N.S., and the learned trial Court has rightly taken cognizance
after due application of mind. Learned State counsel further submits
that at this stage, this Hon’ble Court, while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., may not embark upon an appreciation of
evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact, which are matters to
be tested during trial. Therefore, in view of the material available on
record, the present petition being devoid of merits deserves to be
dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant would submit that it
is most respectfully contended that the impugned FIR clearly discloses
the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 85, 296 and
115(2) of the B.N.S., as the complainant has specifically alleged that
soon after the marriage, she was subjected to continuous physical and
mental cruelty on account of unlawful demand of dowry in the form of
an air-conditioner. It is submitted that the complainant was harassed, ill-
treated and compelled to leave the matrimonial home with a direction
not to return unless the said demand is fulfilled, which clearly
establishes a pattern of cruelty and harassment. Learned counsel
further submits that the allegations made in the FIR are not vague but
are specific in nature and disclose a prima facie case against all the
petitioners, and the same have been duly substantiated during the
course of investigation culminating into filing of charge-sheet. It is
further submitted that the learned trial Court, upon due application of
7
mind, has rightly taken cognizance of the offences, and the truthfulness
or otherwise of the allegations can only be adjudicated during trial.
Therefore, at this stage, no interference is warranted by this Hon’ble
Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, and the present petition
being devoid of merits 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. At the outset, it would be appropriate to consider the scope of
interference in charge-sheet filed by the police against accused in
extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS.
9. In the matter of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial
Magistrate and others8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the
accused can approach the High Court either under Section 528 of
BNSS or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to have the
proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make
out any case against him.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and
others v. Bhajan Lal and others 9 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
8 (1998) 5 SCC 749
9 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
8
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/528 of B.N.S.S 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.
(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
9offence 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
criminal proceeding is a 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.
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
10
arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according
to its whim or caprice.”
11. The principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal‘s case (supra) has been
followed recently by the Supreme Court in the matters of Google India
Private Limited v. Visaka Industries10, Ahmad Ali Quraishi and
another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 11 and Dr Dhruvaram
Murlidhar Sonar. v. State of Maharashtra and others 12″. The
Supreme Court in Google India Private Limited (supra), explained the
scope of dictum of Bhajan Lal‘s case (supra) that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and “that too in the rarest of rare cases” as indicated in
paragraph 103 therein of the report.
12. Having noticed the scope of interference by this Court in a petition
seeking quashment of FIR/charge-sheet, reverting to the facts of the
present case, it is quite evident that in the impugned charge-sheet, the
petitioners have been prosecuted for offences punishable under
Sections 85, 296 and 115(2) of the B.N.S., arising out of Crime No.
349/2024 registered at Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja, and the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur has taken cognizance of
the said offences vide order dated 05.07.2025 in Criminal Case No.
1458/2025.
10 (2020) 4 SCC 162
11 (2020) 13 SCC 435
12 (2019) 18 SCC 191
11
13. The provisions relating to cruelty by husband or his relatives are now
governed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 85 of the
B.N.S. defines the offence of cruelty as under:
“85. 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 purposes 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.”
14. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to
establish an offence under Section 85 of the B.N.S., the prosecution
must establish–
(i) that the woman is legally married;
(ii) that she has been subjected to cruelty or harassment;
and
(iii) that such cruelty or harassment has been inflicted by
the husband or by a relative of the husband, and the same
is either of such a nature as is likely to cause grave injury
or danger to life, limb or health, or is with a view to coercing
12
her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for
property or valuable security.
15. The word “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 85 of the B.N.S. has
been explained in the Explanation appended to the said section. It
consists of two clauses, namely clause (a) and clause (b). To attract
Section 85 of the B.N.S., it must be established that the cruelty or
harassment caused to the wife is of such a nature as is likely to drive
her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb
or health, whether mental or physical, or that such harassment was with
a view to coercing her or her relatives to fulfil any unlawful demand. It is
not every type of harassment or cruelty that would attract the provisions
of Section 85 of the B.N.S. Explanation (b) to Section 85 specifically
contemplates harassment of a woman with a view to coercing her or
any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for property or
valuable security. Therefore, in order to bring the case within the ambit
of clause (b), it must be shown that there was a specific unlawful
demand made by the husband or his relatives and that the harassment
was directly connected with such demand.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priya Vrat Singh and
others v. Shyam Ji Sahai13 considered the issue of delay in lodging
the complaint as well as role that has been ascribed to the accused
therein and quashed the complaint holding the delay of two years in
lodging FIR to be fatal and further held that no role has been ascribed
to the petitioner/accused therein. It was observed as under:-
13 (2008) 8 SCC 232
13“8. Further it is pointed out that the allegation of
alleged demand for dowry was made for the first
time in December, 1994. In the complaint filed,
the allegation is that the dowry torture was made
some times in 1992. It has not been explained as
to why for more than two years no action was
taken.
9. Further, it appears that in the complaint
petition. apart from the husband, the mother of
the husband, the subsequently married wife,
husband’s mother’s sister, husband’s brother in
law and Sunita’s father were impleaded as party.
No role has been specifically ascribed to anybody
except the husband and that too of a dowry
demand in February 1993 when the complaint
was filed on 6.12.1994 i.e. nearly after 22 months.
It is to be noted that in spite of service of notice,
none has appeared on behalf of Respondent
No.1.”
17. Similarly, in the matter of Sunder Babu and others v. State of Tamil
Nadu14 delay in filing complaint against accused therein was taken note
of by their Lordships of the Supreme Court holding the case to be
covered by Category Seven of para-102 highlighted in Bhajan Lal’s
case (supra), the prosecution for offence under Section 85 of BNS and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was quashed.
18. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that a mere casual reference to the family
members of the husband in the FIR as co-accused, in the absence of
any specific allegation disclosing their active involvement, would not
justify continuation of criminal proceedings against them. It was further
held that where the complaint contains only vague and omnibus
allegations against the relatives of the husband, taking cognizance
14 (2009) 14 SCC 244
14
against them would amount to abuse of the process of law. Accordingly,
cognizance for offences relating to cruelty and allied allegations, now
corresponding to Section 85 and other relevant provisions of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, would not be justified.
19. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana
represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others 15
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.
20. Recently, in the matter of Rashmi Chopra (supra), it has been held by
their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relying upon the
principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra), that criminal proceedings
can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie offence is disclosed.
It was further held that the judicial process is a solemn proceeding
which cannot be permitted to be used as an instrument of oppression or
harassment, and the High Court should not hesitate in exercising its
inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings where the case falls within
the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra). Their Lordships further
held that in the absence of specific allegations against individual
accused persons and where only general and omnibus allegations are
made against all the accused, no offence relating to cruelty would be
15 (2018) 14 SCC 452
15
made out. Accordingly, the charges for the offence analogous to cruelty
by husband or relatives, now covered under Section 85 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, were quashed, holding the case to be covered
under Category 7 as enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra), by observing 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…..”
16
21. Having noticed the legal position with regard to quashment of FIR and
charge-sheet, the question that arises for consideration is whether,
taking the contents of the FIR and the charge-sheet as they stand, a
prima facie case for offences punishable under Sections 85, 296 and
115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is made out against the
petitioners?
22. In the matter of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs.
State of Bihar and Others, 2022(6) SCC 599, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has stated as under:-
“10. Having perused the relevant facts and
contentions made by the appellants and
respondents, in our considered opinion, the
foremost issue which requires determination in
the instant case is whether allegations made
against the appellants in-laws are in the nature of
general omnibus allegations and therefore liable
to be quashed.?
11. Before we delve into greater detail on the
nature and content of allegations made, it
becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation
of section 498-A of IPC was aimed at preventing
cruelty committed upon a woman by her
husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid
State intervention. However, it is equally true,
that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the
country has also increased significantly and
there is a greater disaffection and friction
surrounding the institution of marriage, now,
more than ever. This has resulted in an
increased tendency to employ provisions such as
498-A IPC as instruments to settle personal
scores against the husband and his relatives.
12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma
Vs. State of U.P. , has observed:-
17
“14. Section 498-A was inserted in the
statute with the laudable object of
punishing cruelty at the hands of husband
or his relatives against a wife particularly
when such cruelty had potential to result in
suicide or murder of a woman as
mentioned in the statement of Objects and
Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The
expression ‘cruelty’ in Section 498-A
covers conduct which may drive the
woman to commit suicide or cause grave
injury (mental or physical) or danger to life
or harassment with a view to coerce her to
meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of
serious concern that large number of
cases continue to be filed under Section
498-A alleging harassment of married
women. We have already referred to some
of the statistics from the Crime Records
Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the
fact that most of such complaints are filed
in the heat of the moment over trivial
issues. Many of such complaints are not
bona fide. At the time of filing of the
complaint, implications and consequences
are not visualized. At times such
complaints lead to uncalled for harassment
not only to the accused but also to the
complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin
the chances of settlement.”
13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this
court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, it was
also observed;
“4. There is a phenomenal increase in
matrimonial disputes in recent years. The
institution of marriage is greatly revered in
this country. Section 498-A IPC was
introduced with avowed object to combat
the menace of harassment to a woman at
the hands of her husband and his
relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC
is a cognizable and non- bailable offence
has lent it a dubious place of pride
18amongst the provisions that are used as
weapons rather than shield by disgruntled
wives. The simplest way to harass is to get
the husband and his relatives arrested
under this provision. In a quite number of
cases, bed- ridden grand- fathers and
grand-mothers of the husbands, their
sisters living abroad for decades are
arrested.”
14.Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of
Jharkhand, it has also been observed:-
“32. It is a matter of common experience
that most of these complaints under
section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of
the moment over trivial issues without
proper deliberations. We come across a
large number of such complaints which are
not even bona fide and are filed with
oblique motive. At the same time, rapid
increase in the number of genuine cases
of dowry harassment are also a matter of
serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have
enormous social responsibility and
obligation to ensure that the social fiber of
family life is not ruined or demolished.
They must ensure that exaggerated
versions of small incidents should not be
reflected in the criminal complaints.
Majority of the complaints are filed either
on their advice or with their concurrence.
The learned members of the Bar who
belong to a noble profession must
maintain its noble traditions and should
treat every complaint under section 498-A
as a basic human problem and must make
serious endeavour to help the parties in
arriving at an amicable resolution of that
human problem. They must discharge their
duties to the best of their abilities to ensure
that social fiber, peace and tranquility of
the society remains intact. The members
of the Bar should also ensure that one
19complaint should not lead to multiple
cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the
complaint the implications and
consequences are not properly visualized
by the complainant that such complaint
can lead to insurmountable harassment,
agony and pain to the complainant,
accused and his close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find
out the truth and punish the guilty and
protect the innocent. To find out the truth is
a herculean task in majority of these
complaints. The tendency of implicating
husband and all his immediate relations is
also not uncommon. At times, even after
the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult
to ascertain the real truth. 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 of husband’s
close relations 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
complaint are required to be scrutinized
with great care and circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and
protracted criminal trials lead to rancour,
acrimony and bitterness in the relationship
amongst the parties. It is also a matter of
common knowledge that in cases filed by
the complainant if the husband or the
husband’s relations had to remain in jail
even for a few days, it would ruin the
chances of amicable settlement altogether.
The process of suffering is extremely long
and painful.”
20
15. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP, it
was observed:-
“21. It would be relevant at this stage to
take note of an apt observation of this
Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao
vs. L.H.V. Prasad wherein also in a
matrimonial dispute, this Court had held
that the High Court should have quashed
the complaint arising out of a matrimonial
dispute wherein all family members had
been roped into the matrimonial litigation
which was quashed and set aside. Their
Lordships observed therein with which we
entirely agree that:
“12….. “there has been an outburst of
matrimonial dispute in recent times.
Marriage is a sacred ceremony, 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 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 reasons
which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that
the parties may ponder over their defaults
and terminate the 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.”
The view taken by the judges in this matter
was that the courts would not encourage
such disputes.”
16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of
Telangana, it was also observed that:-
21
“6……The Courts should be careful in
proceeding against the distant relatives in
crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes
and dowry deaths. The relatives of the
husband should not be roped in on the
basis of omnibus allegations unless
specific instances of their involvement in
the crime are made out.”
17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse of
section 498-A IPC and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long
term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as
well as the accused. It is further manifest from
the said judgments that false implication by way
of general omnibus allegations made in the
course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked
would result in misuse of the process of law.
Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has
warned the courts from proceeding against the
relatives and in-laws of the husband when no
prima facie case is made out against them.
18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a
perusal of the contents of the FIR dated
01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations
are levelled against the appellants. The
complainant alleged that “all accused harassed
herm mentally and threatened her of terminating
her pregnancy”. Furthermore, no specific and
distinct allegations have been made against
either of the appellants herein, i.e., none of the
appellants have been attributed any specific role
in furtherance of the general allegations made
against them. This simply leads to a situation
wherein one fails to ascertain the role played
by10 each accused in furtherance of the offence.
The allegations are therefore, general and
omnibus and can at best be said to have been
made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar
as husband is concerned, since he has not
appealed against the order of the High court, we
22
have not examined the veracity of allegations
made against him. However, as far as the
Appellants are concerned, the allegations made
against them being general and omnibus, do not
warrant prosecution.”
23. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of “Charul
Shukla V. State of UP and others” reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC
476″ that:-
“22. Furthermore, with respect to the allegations
against the sister-in -law regarding the incitement
of the complainant’s husband in relation to the
alleged extra-marital affair, the prosecution has
failed to provide any specific detail and has not
been able to elaborate upon the nature of the
relationship or how those accusations purportedly
affected complainant’s relationship with her
husband. It is apposite to note that upon the
perusal of the records of the case, nothing
material has been put forth to advance or
substantiate the said allegations. Time and again,
this Court has observed that merely stating
certain vague and omnibus allegations without
any cogent material evidence to support the same
should not become a fillip to jump-start the
criminal machinery of the State. At this juncture,
we find it appropriate to quote the observations of
this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of
Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 which is extracted
as under:
“27. A mere reference to the names of
family members in a criminal case arising
out of a matrimonial dispute, without
specific allegations in the bud. It is a well-
recognised fact, borne out of judicial
experiencee 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
23particularised 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…..
xxx
30. 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 Page 22 of 26 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.
31. 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
24encourage 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.”
24. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it transpires from the FIR that
the respondent No.2/complainant has made general and omnibus
allegations against the petitioners stating that after a few months of
marriage, their behaviour changed and they started harassing her by
demanding an air-conditioner as dowry and subjected her to mental
and physical cruelty, and ultimately asked her to go back to her parental
home with a direction not to return without fulfilling the said demand.
However, no specific date, time or particular incident of cruelty has
been mentioned in the FIR or in the statements recorded during
investigation. It is also apparent that the allegations are sweeping in
nature and have been levelled against all family members without
attributing any distinct role to each of them, particularly petitioner Nos.2
and 3, who are aged parents, and petitioner Nos.4 to 6, who are stated
to be residing separately on account of their studies and profession.
Further, from the record it appears that prior to lodging of the present
FIR dated 01.12.2024, the complainant had approached the Mahila
Thana, Ambikapur, where during counselling she had expressed
unwillingness to take any action, and thereafter, the present FIR has
25
been lodged, which also casts doubt on the prosecution story. From the
material available in the charge-sheet and in light of the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion
that prima facie no offence under Sections 85, 296 and 115(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is made out against the petitioner Nos.2
to 6, and the prosecution against them is squarely covered under
Category 1, 3 and 7 of paragraph 102 of the judgment rendered in
Bhajan Lal (supra), and as such, the same deserves to be quashed.
25. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis and in
the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering that the
mediation between the parties has failed, the FIR dated 01.12.2024
registered in Crime No. 349/2024 at Police Station Sitapur, District
Surguja (C.G.) against the petitioners for the offences punishable under
Sections 85, 296 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the
charge-sheet dated 05.07.2025 filed pursuant thereto bearing Criminal
Case No. 1458/2025, and the entire criminal proceedings pending
before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, District
Surguja (C.G.) against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
26. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved
