Chattisgarh High Court
Shubham Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 July, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
CGHC010237752026 2026:CGHC:30603-DB
NAFR
Digitally signed by
INDRAJEET INDRAJEET SAHU
SAHU Date: 2026.07.21
16:29:51 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1683 of 2026
1 - Shubham Agrawal S/o Pawan Agrawal Aged About 31 Years R/o
Rambhatha, Near Bus Depot, P.S. City Kotwali, District Raigarh C.G.
2 - Pawan Agrawal S/o Late Deenanath Agrawal Aged About 63 Years R/o
Rambhatha, Near Bus Depot, P.S. City Kotwali, District Raigarh C.G.
3 - Meena Agrawal W/o Pawan Agrawal Aged About 60 Years R/o
Rambhatha, Near Bus Depot, P.S. City Kotwali, District Raigarh C.G.
4 - Rahul Agrawal S/o Pawan Agrawal Aged About 34 Years R/o Rambhatha,
Near Bus Depot, P.S. City Kotwali, District Raigarh C.G.
5 - Priya Agrawal W/o Rahul Agrawal Aged About 34 Years R/o Rambhatha,
Near Bus Depot, P.S. City Kotwali, District Raigarh C.G.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Mahila Thana Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G.
2 - Smt. Shikha Agrawal W/o Shubham Agrawal Aged About 29 Years
Presently R/o Kotra Road, P.S. Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioners : Shri Ashish Gupta, Advocate.
For State : Shri Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent No.2 : Shri Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Order on Board
20.07.2026
Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ.
1 The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed
by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR/Crime No.0021/2026
registered against the petitioners at Mahila Thana, Raigarh, and also to
quash the subsequent proceedings in Criminal Case No.372 of 2026
2
pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh (in short,
JMFC).
2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner No. 1 is the
husband of the respondent No. 2/complainant whose marriage was
solemnized on 15.05.2025 as per their rites and rituals. The petitioner
No.2 to 4 are father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-
law of the complainant/respondent No.2. It is alleged that after some
time of marriage, the petitioners started harassing the complainant and
demanded some more dowry to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-. On
08.06.2025 she was sent to her parental house for bringing said
amount. She returned back to her in laws house on 20.06.2025 and
was again sent to her parents house for bringing said amount and thus
she lodged a report against the petitioners. On the basis of said
complaint, the Police registered an FIR of Crime No.0021/2026 for the
offence under Section 85 and 3(5) of BNS at Mahila Thana, Raigarh
and after due investigation charge sheet has been filed before the
JMFC, Raigarh where Criminal Case No.372 of 2026 is pending
consideration.
3 Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the complainant
herself left the home without any reason as she was not interested to
reside with the petitioners. She has raised allegations which are trivial
in nature and the same are insufficient to support the allegation of
harassment, cruelty or for demand of dowry. She wanted to reside with
her parents and dispute arose between them. The allegations levelled
by the complainant is general and omnibus without specifying
particular date. Therefore, FIR No.0021/2026 registered at Mahila
Thana, Raigarh and the entire charge sheet filed against the petitioners
3
for the offence under Sections 85 and 3(5) of BNS and consequential
proceedings of Criminal Case No.372 of 2026 pending before JMFC,
Raigarh, may be quashed.
4 He would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters
of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another1, Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and
another2, Swapnil v. State of Madhya Pradesh3, Rashmi Chopra v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another4 (Para-24), Rajesh Sharma and
others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 5, Kahkashan Kausar
alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others6 and Abhishek
v. State of Madhya Pradesh7.
5 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent/State,
would submit that after due investigation the petitioners have been
charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and prima-facie material
collected during investigation are sufficient to put the petitioners at trial
and considering the material available on record, it cannot be held that
no prima-facie case against the petitioners for standing trial is made
out. He would further submit that jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 528 of B.N.S.S.,2023 extremely limited as FIR and charge-
sheet cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient evidence
available on record to put the accused persons to trial. He would rely
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Taramani
1 (2012) 10 SCC 741
2 (2010) 7 SCC 667
3 (2014) 13 SCC 567
4 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620
5 (2018) 10 SCC 472
6 (2022) 6 SCC 599
7 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083
4
Parakh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others 8 to buttress his
submission that allegation of cruelty is question of fact to be
established during trial, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6 Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, would submit that
after due investigation, the jurisdictional police has submitted charge-
sheet against the petitioners in which there are serious allegations
against the petitioners for threatening the respondent No.2 for demand
of dowry and abusing her. All the submissions raised on behalf of the
petitioners relate to question of fact, that can be considered during the
course of trial and that cannot be considered at this stage and that too
in proceeding under Section 528 of B.NSS as all ingredients of the
aforesaid offences are available to put the petitioners to trial, as such, it
is the case where the petition 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 others9, 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.
8 (2015) 11 SCC 260
9 (1998) 5 SCC 749
5
10 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and
others v. Bhajan Lal and others 10 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, their Lordships laid down the broad
principles where such power under Article 226 of the
Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC/ 528 of B.N.S.S should be
exercised, which are as under: –
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way
of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or
the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2)Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any 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 officer10 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
6without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which
criminal proceeding is a instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that
the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers
do not confer an 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 Industries11, Ahmad Ali Quraishi and
another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 12 and Dr Dhruvaram
Murlidhar Sonar. v. State of Maharashtra and others 13″. 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 the petition
relating to quashment of FIR/charge-sheet, reverting to the facts of the
11 (2020) 4 SCC 162
12 (2020) 13 SCC 435
13 (2019) 18 SCC 191
7
present case, it is quite vivid that in the impugned charge-sheet the
petitioners have been charged for offences under Sections 85 and 3(5)
of BNS.
13 Chapter XXA of the IPC deals with offence of cruelty by husband or
relatives of husband. Section 498A of the IPC defines the offence of
cruelty as under:-
“498A. 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 purpose of this section, “cruelty” means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view
to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of
failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
14 A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to
establish offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, the prosecution must
establish,
(i) That, woman must be married:
(ii) She has been subjected to cruelty or harassment and
(iii) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by
husband of the woman or by relative of her husband.
15 The word ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC has
been explained in Explanation appended to Section 498A of the IPC. It
consists of two clauses namely clause (a) and clause (b). To attract
Section 498A of the IPC, it must be established that cruelty or
harassment to the wife to coerce her or cause bodily injury to herself or
to commit suicide or the harassment was to compel her to fulfill illegal
demand for dowry. It is not every type of harassment or cruelty that
would attract Section 498A of the IPC. Explanation (b) to Section 498A
8
of the IPC contemplates harassment of woman to coerce or any
relation of her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security. The complainant if wants to come within the ambit of
Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC, she can succeed if it is
proved that there was an unlawful demand by the husband or any of
his relatives with respect to money or of some valuable security.
16 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priya Vrat Singh and
others v. Shyam Ji Sahai14 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.
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
Nadu15 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 498A of the
IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was quashed.
14 (2008) 8 SCC 232
15 (2009) 14 SCC 244
9
18 Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Supreme Court
held that casual reference to the family member of the husband in FIR
as co-accused particularly when there is no specific allegation and
complaint did not disclose their active involvement. It was held that
cognizance of matter against them for offence under Sections 498-A,
323, 504, 506 and 304-B of the IPC would not be justified as
cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process.
19 In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana
represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others 16
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 principle
of law laid down in Bhajan Lal‘s case (supra) that criminal proceedings
can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie offence is disclosed
and further held that judicial process is a solemn proceeding which
cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of oppression or
harassment and the High Court should not hesitate in exercising the
jurisdiction to quash the proceedings if the proceedings deserve to be
quashed in line of parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Bhajan Lal‘s case (supra) and further held that in absence of
16 (2018) 14 SCC 452
10
specific allegation regarding anyone of the accused except common
and general allegations against everyone, no offence under Section
498A IPC is made out and quashed the charges for offence under
Section 498A of the IPC being covered by category seven as
enumerated in Bhajan Lal‘s case (supra) by holding as under:-
“24. Coming back to the allegations in the complaint pertaining to
Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. A perusal of the complaint
indicates that the allegations against the appellants for offence under
Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act are general and sweeping.
No specific incident dates or details of any incident has been
mentioned in the complaint. The complaint having been filed after
proceeding for divorce was initiated by Nayan Chopra in State of
Michigan, where Vanshika participated and divorce was ultimately
granted. A few months after filing of the divorce petition, the complaint
has been filed in the Court of C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar with the
allegations as noticed above. The sequence of the events and facts
and circumstances of the case leads us to conclude that the complaint
under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act have been filed as
counter blast to divorce petition proceeding in State of Michigan by
Nayan Chopra.
25. There being no specific allegation regarding any one of the
applicants except common general allegation against everyone i.e.
“they started harassing the daughter of the applicant demanding
additional dowry of one crore” and the fact that all relatives of the
husband, namely, father, mother, brother, mother’s sister and husband
of mother’s sister have been roped in clearly indicate that application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed with a view to harass the
applicants…..”
21 Having noticed the legal position qua quashing the FIR and charge-
sheet, the question would be whether taking the contents of the FIR
and charge-sheet as it is, offence under Section 85 and 3(5) of BNS is
made out against the petitioners?
22 In the matter of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs.
State of Bihar and Others, 2022(6) SCC 599, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has stated as under:-
“10. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions
made by the appellants and respondents, in our considered
opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in
the instant case is whether allegations made against the
11appellants 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 concern that large
number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A
alleging harassment of married women. We have already
referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records
Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of
such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over
trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At
the time of filing of the complaint, implications and
consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints
lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but
also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the
chances of settlement.”
13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, it was also observed;
“4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes
in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered
in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with
avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a
woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The
fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non- bailable
offence has lent it a dubious place of pride 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
12grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad
for decades are arrested.”
14.Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, it
has also been observed:-
“32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these
complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of
the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations.
We come across a large number of such complaints which
are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At
the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine
cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious
concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social
responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of
family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure
that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be
reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the
complaints are filed either on their advice or with their
concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong
to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and
should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic
human problem and must make serious endeavour to help
the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that
human problem. They must discharge their duties to the
best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and
tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the
Bar should also ensure that one 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 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
13relationship 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
with the result that those who could have counselled and
brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their
being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are
many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may
ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a
court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and
in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing
their cases in different courts.”
The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the
courts would not encourage such disputes.”
16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, it
was also observed that:-
“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
14
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.”
23 In the complaint so made, the complainant has only made omnibus
and general allegations against the petitioner No.2 to 4 without being
full particulars about date and place that these petitioners including the
husband treated her with cruelty for not bringing sufficient dowry at the
time of marriage. There is no specific allegation regarding petitioners
No.2 to 4 except common and general allegations against them that
they also have demanded dowry.
24 Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
material available on record, perusing the FIR as well as material
placed in the charge sheet no specific allegations have been made
and only bald and omnibus allegations have been made against the
petitioners No.2 to 4, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie
no offence under Section 85 and 3(5) of BNS is made out for
prosecuting the petitioners No.2 to 4 for the above-stated offence and
15
the prosecution against them for the offence under Section 85 and 3(5)
of BNS covered by Category 1, 3 & 7 of para-102 of the judgment
rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal‘s case (supra) and as
such, liable to be quashed.
25 As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis and
also in the facts and circumstances of the case, FIR No.0021/2026
registered at Mahila Thana Raigarh and the proceeding of Criminal
Case No.372/2026 pending before JMFC, Raigarh, with respect to
petitioners No.2 to 4 i.e. Pawan Agrawal, Meena Agrawal, Rahul
Agrawal and Priya Agrawal, for the offence under Section 85 and
3(5) of BNS is hereby quashed. The prosecution against the petitioner
No.1/(Shubham Agrawal), husband of the complainant-Smt. Shikha
Agrawal shall continue.
26 It is made clear that all the observations made in this order are for the
purpose of deciding the petition filed by the petitioners hereinabove
and this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter
and concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending against
Petitioner No.1-Shubham Agrawal strictly in accordance with law
without being influenced by any of observations made hereinabove.
27 The petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S, 2023. is partly allowed to
the extent indicated hereinabove.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
inder
