Chattisgarh High Court
Jainendra Lahare vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 July, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:27383-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1310 of 2026
1 - Jainendra Lahare Son Of Shri Tekchand Lahare Aged About 40 Years
Resident Of Surya Vihar, Ravi Patanwar Colony, Tifra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
2 - Sarojani Lahare Wife Of Tekchand Lahare Aged About 59 Years Resident
Of Surya Vihar, Ravi Patanwar Colony, Tifra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
3 - Tekchand Lahare Son Of Chandulal Lahare Aged About 68 Years Resident
Of Surya Vihar, Ravi Patanwar Colony, Tifra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
4 - Ravi Lahare, Son Of Tekchand Lahare, Aged About 25 Years Resident Of
Surya Vihar, Ravi Patanwar Colony, Tifra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
5 - Sunita Tondar, Wife Of Shatruhan Tonder Aged About 37 Years Resident
Of Setganga, P.S. Fastarpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.)
6 - Shatruhan Tonder (Wrongly Written Satruhan Todar) Son Of Anujram
Tonder Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Setganga, P.S. Fastarpur, District-
Mungeli (C.G.)
... Petitioners
versus
VED
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.).
Digitally signed
by VED PRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Date: 2026.07.06
2 - Sandhya Lahare, Wife Of Jainendra Lahare, Presently Residing At Bazar
18:45:44 +0530
2
Chowk, Dinesh Store Gali, Near Electric Tower, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra,
Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy A.G.
For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Manju Naik, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
03/07/2026
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned
Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent No.1/State and
learned counsel appearing 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:-
“It is therefore, prayed, that this Hon’ble Court
may kindly be pleased to:-
1. allow the petition and kindly be pleased to
quash the FIR No. 41/2026 registered under
section 85, 296, 351(2), 115(2), 3(5) of Bhartiya
Nyay Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Sirgitti,
District Bilaspur (C.G.);
3
2. and quash the entire charge sheet relating to
Crime No. 41/2026 (wrongly written 41/2025 in
the final report), registered under section 85, 296,
115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita,
2023 at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur
(C.G.) and also quash the cognizance order
dated 17.03.2026 taken against the petitioners by
the concerned Trial Court in relating to Criminal
Case No. 3158/2026;
3. and further quash the criminal proceedings of
the case bearing Criminal Case No. 3158/2026,
arising out of Crime No. 41/2026, registered at
Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
(Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice.”
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 in the month of December, 2020
according to Hindu rites and customs. As per the prosecution case,
after a few days of the marriage, the respondent No.2 was allegedly
subjected to physical and mental cruelty by Petitioner No.1 (husband),
Petitioner No.2 (mother-in-law), Petitioner No.3 (father-in-law),
Petitioner No.4 (brother-in-law/devar), Petitioner No.5 (sister-in-law/
nanad) and Petitioner No.6 (brother-in-law/nandoi), who allegedly
harassed her by demanding dowry, calling her a witch, and subjecting
her to continuous mental and physical harassment, even during her
pregnancy. It has further been alleged that despite complaints made to
4
the Mahila Thana and Police Station Sirgitti, as well as intervention
through social meetings, the dispute could not be resolved and the
petitioner No.1 also threatened the complainant by stating that, being a
Patwari, he would divorce and defame her. On the basis of the written
complaint lodged by Respondent No.2, FIR bearing Crime No. 41/2026
dated 19.01.2026 came to be registered at Police Station Sirgitti,
District Bilaspur, for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 296,
351(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Upon
completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet dated
10.03.2026 (though the crime number has been mistakenly mentioned
therein as Crime No. 41/2025), alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, whereupon the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur took cognizance vide order dated
17.03.2026 and registered Criminal Case No. 3158/2026, which FIR,
charge-sheet, cognizance order and all consequential criminal
proceedings are under challenge in the present petition under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR,
charge-sheet, cognizance order and all consequential criminal
proceedings are nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law,
having been initiated on the basis of false, frivolous and concocted
allegations with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners and to wreak
vengeance upon the entire family of petitioner No.1. It is contended that
the respondent No.2, right from the date of marriage, was insisting that
5
petitioner No.1 should live separately from his parents and family
members and, when such demand was not accepted, she voluntarily
started residing at her parental house and thereafter lodged the present
false complaint as a counterblast. Learned counsel would submit that
even prior to the registration of the present FIR, petitioner No.1 had
lodged a complaint before the Mahila Thana, Bilaspur on 10.04.2021
regarding the conduct of the respondent No.2 and her family members,
and thereafter petitioner No.2 also submitted written complaints dated
27.05.2024 and 16.11.2025 to the concerned authorities, which clearly
demonstrate that the petitioners themselves were aggrieved and had
approached the authorities much before the impugned FIR came to be
lodged. It is further submitted that counselling proceedings were also
conducted between the parties, wherein the respondent No.2 had
initially refused to accompany petitioner No.1 to the matrimonial home
and only on 18.02.2022 agreed to resume the matrimonial relationship.
Learned counsel further submits that petitioner No.1, who is serving as
a Patwari, even caused a legal notice dated 18.09.2024 to be issued
requesting the respondent No.2 to resume cohabitation so that he could
peacefully discharge his official duties, which itself negatives any
intention on his part to subject the respondent No.2 to cruelty. It is also
contended that petitioner No.4 is employed at Manendragarh and
petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are residing separately at District Mungeli, yet
they have been unnecessarily implicated merely because of their
relationship with petitioner No.1, without any specific role or overt act
being attributed to them. According to the learned counsel, the
6
allegations contained in the FIR are vague, general and omnibus in
nature, bereft of any specific particulars regarding the alleged acts of
cruelty or demand of dowry by the individual petitioners and, therefore,
continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the
process of law.
******* He would place reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, Preeti Gupta and another
v. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Swapnil v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 567, Rashmi Chopra v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 (Para
24), Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another, (2018) 10 SCC 472, Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and
others v. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 and Abhishek
v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083 to contend
that where the allegations against the relatives of the husband are
vague, omnibus and devoid of any specific overt act, and the criminal
proceedings appear to have been instituted only to implicate the entire
family, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, ought to
quash such proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law.
5. Learned State counsel would submit that the impugned FIR and the
consequential criminal proceedings have been initiated on the basis of
a written complaint lodged by respondent No.2 disclosing commission
of cognizable offences relating to cruelty, demand of dowry, criminal
7
intimidation and other allied offences. It is submitted that during the
course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the
statements of the complainant and other witnesses under the
provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, collected
relevant material and, upon finding sufficient prima facie evidence
against the petitioners, filed the charge-sheet before the competent
Court for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 296, 115(2),
351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is further
submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur,
after due application of mind to the police report and the material
collected during investigation, has rightly taken cognizance of the
offences vide order dated 17.03.2026. Learned State counsel would
further contend that the allegations made in the FIR and the material
collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case against the
petitioners and, therefore, the correctness or otherwise of such
allegations can only be adjudicated upon during the course of trial. It is
submitted that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Court is not
required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or
adjudicate disputed questions of fact, as the same fall within the
domain of the trial Court. It is, therefore, contended that the present
petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant would submit that
the impugned FIR clearly discloses the commission of cognizable
offences under Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the
8
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as the complainant has specifically
alleged that soon after the marriage, all the petitioners started
subjecting her to continuous physical and mental cruelty on account of
unlawful demand of dowry. It is submitted that the complainant was
repeatedly harassed and humiliated by the petitioners, who used to call
her a witch, mentally torture her, and subject her to physical cruelty,
which continued even during her pregnancy. Learned counsel would
further submit that despite several efforts made by the complainant to
save the matrimonial relationship, including approaching the Mahila
Thana, making complaints through the emergency service (112), and
convening social meetings, the conduct of the petitioners did not
improve. It is further alleged that petitioner No.1 also threatened the
complainant by stating that, being a Patwari, he would divorce her and
defame her. Learned counsel submits that the allegations made in the
FIR are neither vague nor omnibus, but disclose specific instances of
continuous cruelty and harassment committed by the petitioners, which
have been duly corroborated during the course of investigation,
culminating in the filing of the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, upon due
consideration of the police report and the material collected during
investigation, has rightly taken cognizance of the offences vide order
dated 17.03.2026. Learned counsel would contend that the defence
raised by the petitioners regarding prior complaints, counselling
proceedings, separate residence of some of the accused persons, and
other disputed factual aspects are matters of evidence which can only
9
be adjudicated during the course of trial and cannot be examined in
proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023. It is, therefore, submitted that the present petition is
devoid of any merit and 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 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.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and
others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down
the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first
information report and it has been held that such power can be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report,
10
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
11of 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
12accused 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
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 Industries, (2020) 4 SCC 162, Ahmad Ali
Quraishi and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2020)
13 SCC 435 and Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar. v. State of
Maharashtra and others, (2019) 18 SCC 191. 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 an FIR, charge-sheet and consequential criminal
proceedings, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite
13
evident that the petitioners have been prosecuted pursuant to FIR
bearing Crime No. 41/2026 dated 19.01.2026 registered at Police
Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, for the offences punishable under
Sections 85, 296, 351(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating
Officer filed charge-sheet dated 10.03.2026 (though the crime number
has inadvertently been mentioned therein as Crime No. 41/2025) for
the offences punishable under Sections 85, 296, 115(2), 351(3) and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, whereupon the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur took cognizance of the said
offences vide order dated 17.03.2026 and registered Criminal Case No.
3158/2026, which proceedings are under challenge in the present
petition.
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–
14
(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
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
15
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 Sahai, (2008) 8 SCC 232 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:-
“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.
16
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
Nadu (2009) 14 SCC 244 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
against them would amount to abuse of the process of law. Accordingly,
17
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
(2018) 14 SCC 452 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
18
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
19fact 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…..”
21. 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 contents of the FIR, the
statements recorded during investigation and the charge-sheet as they
stand, a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections
85, 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
is made out against the petitioners so as to justify the continuation of
the criminal proceedings, or whether the present case falls within the
well-recognized parameters warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
quashing the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order and all
consequential proceedings.
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
20against 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:-
“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
21concern 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
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.”
22
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
complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the
complaint the implications and consequences
23are 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.”
24
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
25the 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 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.
26
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.”
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
27failed 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 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…..
28
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
29encourage 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
respondent No.2/complainant has alleged that soon after her marriage
with petitioner No.1 solemnized in December, 2020, petitioner No.1
(husband), petitioner No.2 (mother-in-law), petitioner No.3 (father-in-
law), petitioner No.4 (brother-in-law/devar), petitioner No.5 (sister-in-
law/nanad) and petitioner No.6 (brother-in-law/nandoi) started
subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty by demanding dowry,
calling her a witch and harassing her even during her pregnancy. It has
further been alleged that petitioner No.1 threatened to divorce and
defame her by taking advantage of his position as a Patwari. 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, place or distinct overt act attributable to any of
the individual petitioners. The allegations have been levelled collectively
30
against all the family members without specifying the precise role
played by each of them. It is also borne out from the record that
petitioner No.4 is serving at Manendragarh, whereas petitioner Nos.5
and 6 have been residing separately at District Mungeli, and no
material has been collected during investigation indicating their active
participation in the alleged offences. It further appears that much prior
to the registration of the impugned FIR, petitioner No.1 had lodged a
complaint before the Mahila Thana on 10.04.2021 and petitioner No.2
had also submitted written complaints dated 27.05.2024 and
16.11.2025. The counselling proceedings between the parties further
reveal that efforts were made for reconciliation and respondent No.2
had initially declined to accompany petitioner No.1 to the matrimonial
home and subsequently agreed to do so. Petitioner No.1 had also
issued a legal notice dated 18.09.2024 requesting respondent No.2 to
resume cohabitation. Though these documents may ultimately
constitute the defence of the petitioners, they nevertheless indicate that
the matrimonial dispute had been continuing for a considerable period
before the impugned FIR came to be registered. More importantly, even
if the allegations contained in the FIR and the charge-sheet are
accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the necessary particulars
constituting the offences alleged against any of the petitioners, as the
accusations remain vague and bereft of specific instances of cruelty or
unlawful demand of dowry. The criminal prosecution appears to have
been launched by roping in the entire family of petitioner No.1 without
any specific material against the individual petitioners. In such
31
circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount
to abuse of the process of law. The present case, therefore, squarely
falls within Categories (1), (3) 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, Preeti Gupta, Kahkashan Kausar alias
Sonam, Swapnil and Abhishek (supra) also lend support to the
proposition that where allegations in a matrimonial dispute are vague,
omnibus and do not disclose any specific role of the accused persons,
the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court deserves to be exercised to
prevent abuse of the process of law.
25. 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 the continuation of the criminal proceedings
against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the FIR dated 19.01.2026 registered as Crime No.41/2026
at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences
punishable under Sections 85, 296, 351(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the charge-sheet dated 10.03.2026
(though the crime number has inadvertently been mentioned therein as
Crime No.41/2025), the cognizance order dated 17.03.2026 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case
No.3158/2026, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising
therefrom against all the petitioners are hereby quashed.
32
26. It is, however, made clear that the proceedings instituted by respondent
No.2 under Section 125(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (or the corresponding statutory provision, as applicable) shall be
decided independently on their own merits and strictly in accordance
with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in the present order. It
is further clarified that any amount paid to or received by respondent
No.2 pursuant to any interim arrangement or any other proceedings
shall not be taken into consideration while adjudicating her entitlement
in the proceedings under Section 125(4), and the competent Court shall
decide the said proceedings independently on the basis of the evidence
available before it.
27. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved
