Chattisgarh High Court
Indrajeet Pradhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 July, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
CGHC010249592026 2026:CGHC:30604-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1745 of 2026
1 - Indrajeet Pradhan S/o Late Shri Navin Pradhan, Aged About 40 Years R/o
Paterapali P.S. Saraipali, Dist -Mahasamund (C.G.)
2 - Purushottam Pradhan S/o Late Shri Navin Pradhan Aged About 36 Years
R/o Paterapali P.S. Saraipali, Dist -Mahasamund (C.G.)
3 - Sarojini Pradhan Wd /o Late Shri Navin Pradhan Aged About 60 Years R/o
Paterapali P.S. Saraipali, Dist -Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through -S.H.O. P.S. Sankra, Dist -Mahasamund
(C.G.)
2 - Smt. Jagyaseni Pradhan, W/o Shri Indrajeet Pradhan Aged About 38
Years R/o -Vill - Dhodharkasa, Sankra, Dist -Mahasamund (C.G.)
---- Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
VED 20/07/2026 PRAKASH DEWANGAN
1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the
Digitally signed
by VED
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN petitioners as well as Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate
Date: 2026.07.21
19:45:47 +0530
2
appearing for the respondent No.1/State.
2. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the
petitioners seeking quashment of First Information Report bearing
Crime No. 32/2026 registered on 17.02.2026 at Police Station Sankra,
District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 377 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge-
sheet No. 57/2026 dated 01.05.2026, the order dated 03.06.2026
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithaura, District
Mahasamund taking cognizance against the petitioners in Criminal
Case No. 1027/2026 and all consequential criminal proceedings arising
therefrom.
3. Earlier, by order dated 08.07.2026, this Court, considering that the
dispute between the parties was matrimonial in nature, referred the
matter to the Mediation Centre of this Court with a direction to
petitioner No.1 to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Mediation
Centre for payment to respondent No.2 on her appearance. In
compliance with the said order, petitioner No.1 deposited the aforesaid
amount and both the parties appeared before the Mediation Centre.
However, despite the efforts made during mediation, no amicable
settlement could be arrived at between the parties. Consequently, the
mediation proceedings have failed and the present petition is being
considered on its own merits.
4. The present CRMP has been filed by the petitioners seeking for the
following relief:-
3
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
kindly be pleased to allow the Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition and may kindly be pleased
to quash the First Information Report No. 32/2026
registered at P.S. Sankra, Dist- Mahasamund
(C.G.) registered on 17.02.2026, for the offence
punishable U/s 498-A of I.P.C., charge sheet No.
57/2026 dated 01.05.2026 filed for the offence
punishable U/s 498-A, 377 & 34 of I.P.C, the order
of taking cognizance by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class Pithaura, Dist-
Mahasamund (C.G.) on 03.06.2026 and the
proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1027/2026
pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class Pithaura, Dist.- Mahasamund (C.G.), in the
interest of justice.”
5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the accused
persons in Crime No. 32/2026 registered at Police Station Sankra,
District Mahasamund for the offences punishable under Sections 498-
A, 377 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.2/complainant
lodged a written complaint on 17.02.2026 alleging that her marriage
with petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 24.03.2022 according to Hindu
rites and customs. It was alleged that she resided in her matrimonial
home only for about 10 to 15 days, during which period petitioner No.1,
her husband, used to lock the house from outside while leaving for
work, abused her, subjected her to physical and mental cruelty on
account of demand of dowry and also committed unnatural sexual
intercourse with her against her will. It was further alleged that
petitioner Nos.2 and 3, namely her mother-in-law and brother-in-law,
also subjected her to physical and mental cruelty in connection with the
4
demand of dowry. She further alleged that when she fell ill on
15.03.2023 and intended to return to her parental home, petitioner
No.1 and petitioner No.2 retained her bag containing ornaments. On
the basis of the said complaint, FIR bearing Crime No. 32/2026 was
registered on 17.02.2026 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.
After completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet No.
57/2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 377 and 34
of the IPC on 01.05.2026. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Pithaura, District Mahasamund took cognizance on
03.06.2026 and registered Criminal Case No. 1027/2026 against the
petitioners, which proceedings, along with the FIR, charge-sheet and
order taking cognizance, are under challenge in the present petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned
FIR, charge-sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings are
nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law. He would submit that
the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was
solemnized on 24.03.2022 and the complainant herself has admitted in
her written complaint that she resided in her matrimonial home only for
about 10 to 15 days. Despite such admission, she has levelled
sweeping and omnibus allegations of physical and mental cruelty,
demand of dowry and commission of unnatural sexual intercourse
without mentioning any specific date, time or place of the alleged
incidents. It is submitted that the allegations are vague, inherently
improbable and do not disclose the essential ingredients of the
offences alleged against the petitioners. He would further submit that
petitioner No.2, who is the mother-in-law, and petitioner No.3, who is
5
the brother-in-law of the complainant, have been falsely implicated
merely because of their relationship with petitioner No.1. No specific
overt act has been attributed to either of them except making general
and omnibus allegations. It is further submitted that petitioner No.3 is
serving as a Jail Security Guard at Sub-Jail, Sarangarh and, as
admitted by the complainant herself, petitioner No.2 was residing with
him, which itself belies the allegation that both of them actively
participated in the alleged acts at the matrimonial home.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that the
allegation regarding commission of offence under Section 377 of the
IPC is wholly bald and unsupported by any medical evidence or other
corroborative material. The complaint is completely silent with regard to
the date, time and circumstances of the alleged incident and the
investigating agency has also failed to collect any independent material
substantiating such serious allegation. Therefore, even if the
allegations contained in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, no prima
facie offence under Section 377 of the IPC is made out against
petitioner No.1. He would further submit that the allegation regarding
retention of the complainant’s ornaments is also unsupported by any
complaint, recovery or documentary material. The complainant
admittedly left the matrimonial home on 15.03.2023, whereas after
nearly three years she first approached the Family Counselling Centre
and thereafter lodged the present FIR on 17.02.2026, which clearly
demonstrates that the criminal proceedings have been initiated as an
afterthought only to harass the petitioners and to exert pressure in a
matrimonial dispute.
6
8. Learned counsel would further submit that petitioner No.1 is a
practising Advocate at Tahsil Court, Saraipali having an established
professional career, petitioner No.2 is a sixty-year-old lady suffering
from old-age ailments and petitioner No.3 is a Government servant.
Continuation of the criminal proceedings against them in the absence
of any specific allegations and prima facie material would amount to
abuse of the process of law. It is, therefore, submitted that the FIR,
charge-sheet, order taking cognizance and all consequential
proceedings deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court.
9. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and would submit
that the allegations levelled in the written complaint, statements of the
witnesses recorded during investigation and the material collected by
the investigating agency disclose the commission of cognizable
offences under Sections 498-A, 377 and 34 of the IPC. After
conducting a detailed investigation, the police has filed the charge-
sheet and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has taken
cognizance of the offences. It is submitted that there is sufficient prima
facie material available on record to proceed against the petitioners
and the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations can only be
adjudicated upon after appreciation of evidence during trial. It is further
submitted that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Court is not
expected to meticulously appreciate the evidence or adjudicate upon
the disputed questions of fact. The defence sought to be raised by the
7
petitioners involves factual issues, which can only be examined during
the course of trial after recording evidence. Therefore, no case is made
out for quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance or
the consequential criminal proceedings, and the present petition
deserves to be dismissed.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available in the case.
11. 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.
12. In the matter of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial
Magistrate and others, (1998) 5 SCC 749 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.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and
others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has
authoritatively laid down the principles governing the exercise of
inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings. It has been held
that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India and the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, now corresponding to Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is intended to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
8
justice. In paragraph 102 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court illustratively enumerated the categories of cases in which such
extraordinary jurisdiction may be exercised. The relevant observations
are reproduced hereinbelow:-
“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
9of 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 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.
10
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.”
14. The principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) has consistently
been followed and reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena
of subsequent decisions including Google India Private Limited v.
Visaka Industries, (2020) 4 SCC 162, Ahmad Ali Quraishi and
another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2020) 13 SCC 435,
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and
others, (2021) 19 SCC 401, and Haji Iqbal @ Bala v. State of U.P.
and others, Criminal Appeal No. 2343 of 2023, decided on
08.08.2023. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that
while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, now corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the High Court is required to exercise
such power sparingly, with great caution and only to prevent abuse of
the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. At the same time,
where the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected
during investigation, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose
the commission of any cognizable offence or continuation of the
11
criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court,
the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to
quash the criminal proceedings.
15. Having noticed the scope of interference by this Court while exercising
its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a petition seeking quashment of the FIR,
charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings, reverting to the
facts of the present case, it is quite evident that the petitioners have
been prosecuted pursuant to FIR bearing Crime No. 32/2026 dated
17.02.2026 registered at Police Station Sankra, District Mahasamund,
for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 377 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating
Officer filed Charge-sheet No. 57/2026 dated 01.05.2026 for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 377 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, whereupon the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Pithaura, District Mahasamund took cognizance of the said offences
vide order dated 03.06.2026 and registered Criminal Case No.
1027/2026 against the petitioners, which proceedings are under
challenge in the present petition.
16. The provisions relating to cruelty by husband or his relatives, as
applicable to the present case, are contained in Section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code, which 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
12be 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.”
17. A careful reading of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to
establish an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the
prosecution must establish–
(i) that the complainant is the legally wedded wife
of the accused;
(ii) that she has been subjected to “cruelty” within
the meaning of the Explanation appended to
Section 498-A of the IPC; and
(iii) that such cruelty or harassment has been
inflicted by the husband or by a relative of the
husband and that the same is either of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
13suicide 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 any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for property or valuable security,
or was on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.”
18. The expression “cruelty” occurring in Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code has been explained in the Explanation appended to the said
provision. The Explanation comprises two distinct limbs, namely clause
(a) and clause (b). In order to attract the provisions of Section 498-A
IPC, it must be established that the conduct of the husband or his
relatives amounted to wilful conduct of such a nature as is likely to
drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger
to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical, or that the
woman was subjected to harassment with a view to coercing her or
any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for property or
valuable security, or on account of failure to meet such demand. It is
well settled that every matrimonial discord, ordinary wear and tear of
married life or general allegations of ill-treatment would not constitute
“cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. To bring a case
within the ambit of clause (b) of the Explanation, there must be specific
allegations disclosing an unlawful demand for dowry or valuable
security coupled with harassment directly connected with such
demand. Likewise, for attracting clause (a), the allegations must prima
facie disclose wilful conduct of such gravity as is likely to drive the
14
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life,
limb or health. Mere bald, omnibus or vague allegations, unsupported
by particulars, would not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence
under Section 498-A IPC.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priya Vrat Singh and
others v. Shyam Ji Sahai, (2008) 8 SCC 232, considered the effect of
unexplained delay in lodging the complaint coupled with the absence of
specific allegations against the relatives of the husband in a
prosecution under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an inordinate and unexplained delay
in setting the criminal law into motion is a relevant circumstance while
considering the continuance of criminal proceedings and further
observed that where no specific role has been attributed to the
relatives of the husband, their prosecution would amount to abuse of
the process of law. It was observed as under:-
“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
15anybody 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.”
20. Similarly, in the matter of Sunder Babu and others v. State of Tamil
Nadu, (2009) 14 SCC 244, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the
inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the complaint coupled with
the absence of specific allegations against the accused persons.
Holding that the case fell within Category (7) of paragraph 102 of the
decision rendered in Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to
abuse of the process of the Court and, accordingly, quashed the
prosecution for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
21. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, 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 in the
commission of the alleged offence, would not justify continuation of
criminal proceedings against them. It was further held that where the
complaint contains only vague, omnibus and general allegations
against the relatives of the husband without attributing any specific
overt act, permitting the prosecution to continue against such relatives
would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the
16
Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated
against the relatives of the husband for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, holding that mere implication on account of relationship
with the husband, without any specific material, cannot be sustained in
law.
22. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana
represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others,
(2018) 14 SCC 452, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that while
dealing with criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes,
the Courts are required to exercise greater caution before proceeding
against the relatives of the husband. It was held that the Courts should
be careful in proceeding against distant relatives in cases relating to
matrimonial disputes and dowry-related offences and that the relatives
of the husband should not be roped in merely on the basis of vague,
omnibus and general allegations. Unless the complaint discloses
specific instances of their active involvement constituting the alleged
offences, continuation of criminal proceedings against such relatives
would amount to abuse of the process of law.
23. Recently, in the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and another, (2019) 15 SCC 357, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relying
upon the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra), reiterated that
criminal proceedings can be permitted to continue only where the
complaint and the material collected during investigation disclose the
commission of a prima facie offence. It was further held that the judicial
17
process is a solemn proceeding and cannot be permitted to be used as
an instrument of oppression or harassment, and where the allegations
contained in the complaint are vague, omnibus and do not disclose the
specific role of the individual accused, the High Court would be justified
in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.
Their Lordships further held that in the absence of specific allegations
against the individual accused persons and where only general and
sweeping allegations are levelled against all the family members of the
husband, continuation of criminal proceedings for the offences under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 would amount to abuse of the process of
law. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the criminal
proceedings by holding the case to be covered by Category (7) of the
principles enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra), 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
18
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…..”
24. Having noticed the legal position with regard to quashment of an FIR,
charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings, the question
that arises for consideration is whether, taking the allegations
contained in the FIR, the statements of the complainant and other
witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, and the material
collected by the investigating agency at their face value, a prima facie
case for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 377 and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners so as to
justify continuation of the criminal proceedings, or whether the present
case falls within the well-recognized parameters laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) warranting exercise of
the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing the impugned
19
FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance and all consequential
criminal proceedings.
25. 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:-
20
“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
21harassment 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
amongst 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
22profession 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 complaint 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
23complaint 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.”
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
24with 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:-
“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
25
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 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.”
26
26. 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
27
concrete evidence or particularised allegations
cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution.
Courts must exercise caution in such cases to
prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal
process and avoid unnecessary harassment of
innocent family members…..
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.
28
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
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.”
27. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it transpires from the FIR
that respondent No.2/complainant has alleged that her marriage with
petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 24.03.2022 and that she resided in
her matrimonial home only for about 10 to 15 days. It has been alleged
that during the said period petitioner No.1 used to lock the house from
outside while leaving for work, abused her, subjected her to physical
and mental cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry and also
committed unnatural sexual intercourse against her will. It has further
been alleged that petitioner No.2 (mother-in-law) and petitioner No.3
(brother-in-law) also subjected her to physical and mental cruelty on
account of demand of dowry and that while she was leaving for her
29
parental home on 15.03.2023, petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2
retained her bag containing ornaments. However, a careful scrutiny of
the FIR, the statements recorded during investigation and the material
accompanying the charge-sheet would reveal that the allegations are
wholly general, vague and omnibus in nature. Neither the FIR nor the
statements of the witnesses disclose any specific date, time or place
with regard to the alleged acts of cruelty, demand of dowry or
commission of the offence under Section 377 of the IPC. No distinct
overt act has been attributed to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 except making
general allegations against them by virtue of their relationship with
petitioner No.1. On the contrary, the complainant herself has stated
that petitioner No.3 is serving as a Jail Security Guard at Sub-Jail,
Sarangarh and that petitioner No.2 was residing with him, which
renders their active participation in the alleged incidents at the
matrimonial home highly doubtful. It is also borne out from the record
that the complainant admittedly left the matrimonial home on
15.03.2023, whereas after nearly three years she first approached the
Family Counselling Centre and thereafter lodged the impugned FIR on
17.02.2026. No plausible explanation has been offered for such
inordinate delay. Though the proceedings of the Family Counselling
Centre indicate that efforts were made for amicable settlement and the
parties had discussed return of stridhan and payment of a lump sum
amount towards permanent settlement, no settlement could ultimately
be arrived at. More importantly, even if the allegations contained in the
FIR and the charge-sheet are accepted in their entirety, they do not
disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under
30
Sections 498-A, 377 and 34 of the IPC against petitioner Nos.2 and 3,
nor do they disclose any specific material constituting the offence
under Section 377 IPC against petitioner No.1 except a bald and
omnibus allegation. The criminal prosecution, therefore, appears to
have been initiated by roping in the entire family of petitioner No.1
without any specific material against the individual petitioners. In such
circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount
to abuse of the process of the Court. The present case, therefore,
squarely falls within Categories (1), (3), (5) and (7) illustratively
enumerated in paragraph 102 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra). The principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra, K. Subba Rao, Priya Vrat
Singh, Sunder Babu, Rashmi Chopra and Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam (supra) also fortify the view that where the allegations in a
matrimonial dispute are vague, omnibus, unsupported by specific
particulars and the relatives of the husband have been implicated
without attributing any distinct role to them, the inherent jurisdiction of
the High Court deserves to be exercised to prevent abuse of the
process of law.
28. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis and in
the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings
against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 32/2026
dated 17.02.2026 registered at Police Station Sankra, District
Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
31
377 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the Charge-sheet No. 57/2026
dated 01.05.2026, the order dated 03.06.2026 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithaura, District Mahasamund taking
cognizance in Criminal Case No. 1027/2026, and all consequential
criminal proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners are
hereby quashed.
29. It is, however, made clear that since no amicable settlement could be
arrived at between the parties before the Mediation Centre, the amount
of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited by petitioner No.1 pursuant to the order
dated 08.07.2026 passed by this Court shall be released in favour of
respondent No.2/complainant, in terms of the said order, without
prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in any other civil
or matrimonial proceedings. It is further clarified that payment and
receipt of the aforesaid amount shall not be construed as a full and
final settlement of the disputes between the parties nor shall it
prejudice the rights of either party in any proceedings pending or to be
instituted before the competent Court, which shall be decided
independently on their own merits in accordance with law.
30. Accordingly, the present petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deserves to be and is
hereby allowed. The impugned First Information Report bearing Crime
No. 32/2026 dated 17.02.2026, the Charge-sheet No. 57/2026 dated
01.05.2026, the order taking cognizance dated 03.06.2026 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithaura, District
Mahasamund in Criminal Case No. 1027/2026, and all consequential
32
criminal proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners stand
quashed.
31. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved
