Chattisgarh High Court
Tej Prakash Khunte @ Chhotu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 May, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1 / 21
2026:CGHC:20931-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1081 of 2026
1 - Tej Prakash Khunte @ Chhotu S/o. Suresh Kumar Khunte Aged
About 28 Years R/o. Village Devermaal, Post Devri, P.S. Sakti, District
Sakti (C.G.)
2 - Suresh Kumar Khunte @ Nanki S/o. Bharat Ram Aged About 56
Years R/o. Village Devermaal, Post Devi, P.S. Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.)
3 - Smt. Uma Bai W/o. Suresh Kumar Khunte Aged About 47 Years R/o.
Village Devermaal, Post Devri, P.S. Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.)
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer of Police
Station Balco Nagar, Korba District- Korba Chhattisgarh.
2 - Smt. Manju Khunte W/o. Tej Prakash Khunte Aged About 31 Years
R/o. Shivnagar, Rugmada, Near Jai Stambh, P.S. Balco Nagar, District-
Korba Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate
For State / Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Rajani Soren, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per, Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
Digitally
signed by
ASHUTOSH
ASHUTOSH MISHRA
MISHRA Date:
2026.05.07
16:22:22
+0530
2 / 2105/05/2026
1. Vide order dated 21.04.2026 this Court referred the matter for
mediation. As per the report dated 28.04.2026, the petitioner No.1 has
deposited Rs.50,000/- with the Mediation Center and as per the report
of Mediation Center dated 28.04.2026, the mediation between the
parties have failed.
2. Heard Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, learned counsel for the Petitioners.
Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for
the respondent No.1/State and Ms. Rajani Soren, learned counsel for
Respondent No.2.
3. The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief(s)-
(a) To quash the order taking cognizance i.e. 09/03/2026
against the Petitioners under Section 85 and 3 (5) of
Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Case 1379 / 2026.
(b) To quash the Criminal Case No.1379/2026 pending
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba,
Chhattisgarh State Vs. Tej Prakash Khnute & Others in
connection with crime No.91/2026 registered by Police
Station Balco, Korba (C.G.).
(c) To quash the Final Report No.88/2026 dated
08/03/2026 which is filed before Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Korba against the Petitioners in connection with
crime No.91/2026 registered by Police Station Balco
3 / 21Nagar, Korba on 17/02/2026.
(d) Pass any other further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case and in the interest of justice.
4. The brief facts of this case as projected by the petitioners are that
the Petitioner No. 1 is Husband of the Complainant (Respondent No. 2),
Petitioner No. 2 is Father in Law and Petitioner No. 3 is Mother in law of
the Complainant (Respondent No. 2). The allegations made by the
Complainant (Respondent No. 2) in F.I.R. are that the marriage between
Complainant and Petitioner No. 1 (Husband) was solemnized on
16/02/2023 as per the rituals of their society. Prior to their marriage, the
Petitioner No. 1 got to know about savings of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the bank
account of complainant and asked her to give the amount to him. The
complainant refused to give him the amount stating that the amount is
saved for her marriage by her parents. The Petitioner No. 1 refused to
marry with complainant just day before their marriage and after many
efforts he agreed to marry her. Petitioners started harassing the
complainant for dowry after one month of marriage i.e. 16/03/2023.
Complainant tried to commit suicide after being harassed by Petitioners.
Petitioners came to house of complainant and asked her not to record
her statement before Police Station Darri about the attempt to suicide
incident and told her that Petitioners will take good care of her. Upon
that assurance, complainant went to the house of Petitioners and lived
for 2 months there. Again Petitioners started harassing the complainant
4 / 21
and left her to her parental house at Rugmada.
5. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that the complainant lodged a
complaint before Mahila Paramarsh Kendra, Korba. A compromise was
done and Petitioner No. 1 took complainant to his home. They lived well
for 2-3 months but again Petitioner No. 1 started harassing the
complainant for demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- cash, car and more things as
dowry. He again sent her to her parental house and she lived in her
parental house for 8-9 months. Thereafter she lodged a complaint
before Mahila Thana Sakti and again a compromise was done between
them. The Petitioner No. 1 took her to his home and she started a job at
a private Hospital in Shivrinarayan. Whenever the complainant goes to
the house of Petitioner No. 1, he checks her mobile, whatsapp
messages, calls and accounts. Petitioners No. 1 also made allegation
upon her that she is having illicit relation with a doctor. On 14/04/2025
the Petitioner No. 1 left the complainant at Shivrinarayan. Due to
harassment of Petitioner No. 1, the complainant left her job. On
18/12/2025 the Petitioner No. 1 met the complainant at Sakti, Dadai and
asked her to take all her jewelries and other things to his home. She
went to her matrimonial house and lived there for 1 month. On
16/01/2026 again Petitioners started harassing her and kept her
jewelries and other things with them and demanded Rs. 8,00,000/-, gold
chain, car from her parents. Petitioner No. 1 also threatened her that he
will viral their private videos and after that she again went to her
parents.
5 / 21
6. Further it is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 21/01/2026 the
complainant called her father in law and told him that she wanted to live
with them. The mother in law of complainant asked her to come there.
She went to Dadai Bus Stand and called Petitioner No. 1 to receive her.
Petitioner No. 1 came to Bus Stand, demanded for dowry and when
demand was not fulfilled, he slapped her. The complainant told her
family about the incident and on 23/01/2026 a society meeting was
conducted at Petitioner’s house. In society meeting the in laws of
complainant misbehaved with her parents consequence to which the
meeting failed. Petitioners are threatening the complainant that she
cannot do anything against them.
7. The F.I.R. was registered on 17/02/2026 by Police Station Balco,
Korba on written complaint of Complainant (Respondent No. 2)
registered as crime No. 91/2026 for the offences punishable u/s 85 and
3. (5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against Petitioners. The
Petitioners made an application for grant of anticipatory bail before
Learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Korba bearing No. B.A. No.
114/2026. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Korba
granted anticipatory bail to the Petitioners on 28/02/2026.
8. The Final Report No. 88/2026 dated 08/03/2026 has been filed
before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba against Petitioners. Final
Report was filed in connection of F.I.R. No. 91/2026 which was
registered by Police Station Balco, Korba on 17/02/2026 under Section
85 and 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against Petitioners. The
6 / 21
Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba took cognizance in the
matter under Section 85 and 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 on
09/03/2026 and directed for registration of criminal case against them.
Hence the petition.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
have never demanded dowry from the Complainant and her parents. He
would further submit that the F.I.R. has been registered only to harass
Petitioners and it is abuse of process of law. It is submitted that the
Petitioner No. 1 (Husband) and complainant (Respondent No. 2) met
with each other while working in Mobile Medical Unit of Mukhya Mantri
Shahri Slum Swasthya Yojna, Nagar Nigam Korba. Petitioner No. 1 was
Pathologist and the complainant was N.H.M. Nurse. They liked each
other and after consent of their family they got married on 16/02/2023.
After marriage they both started living at Korba due to their jobs. After
some time of marriage, the complainant went to her parental house and
made a complaint before Mahila Thana, Parivar Paramarsh Kendra,
Korba in the year 2023. The Petitioner No. 1 received a notice from
Parivar Paramarsh Kendra for counseling. He appeared in the
counseling and he was ready to take complainant back to his house.
The complainant also agreed to go back to her matrimonial house. It is
further submitted that on 05/05/2024 the Petitioner No. 1 took the
complainant to Chhitpahariya for a wedding of her relative. On request
of complainant, the Petitioner No.1 took her to her parental house in
Sakti on 15/05/2024 and left her there. When the Complainant went to
her parental house, she also took the qualification certificates of
7 / 21
Petitioner No. 1 along with her without his consent. It is further
submitted that in the month of October 2024, the Complainant joined at
Maa Shabri Multispeciality Hospital as a nurse. In the month of
December 2024 when Complainant lived around 6-7 months in her
parental house, the Petitioners along with their relatives went to
parental home of complainant at Rungra, Korba to take her. The mother
of complainant refused to let complainant go with them, misbehaved
with Petitioners and threatened them of filing complaint before police.
Thereafter, the Petitioner No. 1 made an application before Police
Station Sakti intimating about the above incident. In the month of
January 2025, a counseling was conducted upon application of
Petitioner No. 1 at Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Sakti and complainant
was called there. The counseling was successful but complainant did
not go with him immediately. On 12/01/2025 the Petitioner No. 1 went
parental home of complainant to take her. She came with him and lived
only 3-4 days with him and again she left Petitioner’s home and went to
Shivrinarayan for her job. It is further submitted that on 13/04/2025
again Petitioner No. 1 went to parental house of complainant to take
her. She lived only 1 day with Petitioner No. 1 and again left him. On
12/05/2025 again Petitioner No. 1 went to Shivrinarayan to take her but
she refused to live with him. On 18/12/2025 complainant left her job at
Shivrinarayan and came to the Petitioners house at Devermaal and
gave certificates of Petitioner No. 1. The marriage was solemnized on
16/02/2023 and the Complainant left the house of the Petitioners on
16/01/2026. She lived with the Petitioners for only 3 years and she had
8 / 21
not come back from her parental house despite the Petitioner No. 1
tried to convince her repeatedly. During 3 years, she repeatedly left her
matrimonial home and lived at Shivrinarayan and with her parents at
Korba. The allegations are bald and inherently improbable. The order
taking cognizance is wholly illegal and has been passed in a
mechanical manner without recording any prima facie satisfaction
regarding the ingredients of the alleged offence. Thus, the prosecution
discloses a case of ordinary matrimonial discord being given a criminal
colour after an ordinate delay, amounting to abuse of process and
causing grave prejudice to the petitioners. Therefore, the petition may
be allowed and the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential
proceedings of the criminal case be quashed.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned
counsel for the Respondent No.2 oppose the petition and submits that
the FIR in question was registered on the basis of a written complaint
made by respondent No.2 alleging cruelty by the petitioners. It is
submitted that upon receipt of the complaint, the police conducted
investigation in accordance with law and, after recording statements of
the complainant and other witnesses and collecting relevant material,
found a prima facie case to be made out against the petitioners.
Consequently, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class Korba. Learned State counsel would further
submit that the allegations levelled in the FIR and the charge-sheet
disclose the commission of cognizable offence under Sections 85,
3(5)of BNS, which require appreciation of evidence and determination
9 / 21
of disputed questions of fact, and the same cannot be adjudicated in
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 of BNSS. It is
further submitted that the defence raised by the petitioners, are matter
which may be examined by the trial Court during trial and do not, by
themselves, constitute a ground for quashment of the criminal
proceedings at the threshold and submitted that the petition is liable to
be dismissed.
11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the documents appended with the petition.
12. 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 482 of the CrPC/528 of the
BNSS.
13. In the matter of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special
Judicial Magistrate and others, 1998 (5) SCC 749 the Supreme Court
has held that the accused can approach the High Court either under
Section 482 of the CrPC/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.
14. The Supreme Court in the mater 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
10 / 21
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 BNSS 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
11 / 21entirety 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
notconstitute 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
12 / 21ground 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 a criminal proceeding
is 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
13 / 21
whim or caprice.”
15. 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.
16. 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 present case, it is quite vivid that in the impugned charge-sheet,
the petitioners have been charged for offence under Sections 85, 3(5) of
BNS.
17. 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
14 / 21punished 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 willful 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.”
18. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in
order to establish offence under Section 498-A of the IPC/85 of BNS,
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
15 / 21
of her husband.
19. The word ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of Section 498A 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/ 85 of BNS, 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/85 of BNS.
Explanation (b) to Section 498A 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
thehusband or any of his relatives with respect to money or of some
valuable security.
20. The 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
16 / 21in 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.”
21. 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 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act was quashed.
22. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Supreme
Court held that casual reference to the family member of the husband in
17 / 21
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 and 506 of the IPC would not be justified as cognizance would
result in abuse of judicial process.
23. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana
represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others, 15
(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.
24. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra (supra) it has been held by their
Lordships of the 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 Supreme Court in
Bhajan Lal‘s case (supra) and further held that in absence of specific
18 / 21
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.
19 / 21
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…..”
25. Having noticed the legal position governing the quashment of FIR
and charge-sheet, the question that arises for consideration is, whether
taking the allegations made in FIR No. 91/2026 and the charge sheet at
their face value, any prima facie offence under Sections 85, 3(5) of BNS
(498A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code) is made out against the petitioners.
26. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of respondent
No.2 was solemnized with petitioner Tej Prakash Khunte @ Chhotu
(petitioner No.1) on 16/02/2023 as per Hindu rites and rituals, and that
soon thereafter she was subjected to cruelty, harassment and demand
of money by the petitioner No.1 and her in-laws. On the basis of her
written complaint, FIR No.91/2026 was registered at Police Station
Balco, Korba and after completion of investigation, the police filed
charge- sheet for the aforesaid offence against the petitioners.
27. However, a careful examination of the FIR and the statements
20 / 21
forming part of the charge sheet reveals that the allegations made by
respondent No.2 are general, omnibus and lacking in specific
particulars regarding dates, instances, or overt acts attributable to the
petitioners. The later allegations made in the FIR reflect substantial
improvements and embellishments inconsistent with her earlier version.
Except broad and vague assertions that the petitioners ill-treated her
and reiteration of adverse situations between the parties, no specific
allegation is made against the petitioners to constitute cruelty within the
meaning of Section 85, 3(5) of BNS.
28. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and the material placed on record, particularly the nature of allegations
in the FIR and charge sheet, which are bald, omnibus and inherently
inconsistent, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prima facie
offence under Section 85, 3(5) of BNS is made out against the
petitioners. The allegations do not disclose any specific conduct
amounting to cruelty as defined under Section 85, 3(5) of BNS (Section
498-A, 34 of the IPC), nor do they disclose any unlawful demand of
dowry so as to satisfy Explanation (b). The prosecution appears to be
covered by Category 1, 3 and 7 of paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal (supra),
being based on vague assertions, improvements, and indications of
mala fide arising out of matrimonial discord and disagreement.
Accordingly, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to
abuse of the process of law.
29. As a natural consequence of the above analysis, the impugned
21 / 21
FIR bearing No. 91/2026 registered at Police Station- Balco, Korba,
(C.G.) on 17/02/2026 for offence under Sections 85 and 3(5) of BNS,
Final Report No.88/2026 dated 08/03/2026, order taking cognizance
dated 09.03.2026 and all consequential proceedings in Criminal Case
No.1379/2026 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba
(C.G.) against petitioners are hereby quashed. The petition is
accordingly allowed.
30. The petitioner No.1 is entitled for refund of the amount deposited
by him before the Mediation Center of this Court in compliance of the
order dated 21.04.2026.
31. No order as to costs.
SD/- SD/-
SD/- SD/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ashu
