Chattisgarh High Court
Rupendra Upadhayay vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 April, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:16659-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 882 of 2025
1 - Rupendra Upadhayay S/o Ashok Upadhayay Aged About 34 Years
R/o House No. B-06, Gayatri Parisar Colony, Thana Sarkanda, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
2 - Sandhya Upadhayay W/o Ashok Upadhayay Aged About 55 Years
R/o House No. B-06, Gayatri Parisar Colony, Thana Sarkanda, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
3 - Ashish Upadhayay S/o Ashok Upadhayay Aged About 30 Years R/o
House No. B-06, Gayatri Parisar Colony, Thana Sarkanda, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
4 - Smt. Shruti Upadhayay W/o Ashish Upadhayay Aged About 28
Years R/o House No. B-06, Gayatri Parisar Colony, Thana Sarkanda,
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
- Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
2 - Priya Sharma W/o Rupendra Upadhayay Aged About 32 Years R/o
B-6 Gayatri Parisar, Colony Sarkanda, Thana Sarkanda, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
2
CRMP No. 945 of 2025
1 - Ashish Upadhayay S/o Ashok Kumar Upadhayay Aged About 30 Years R/o Gayatri Parisar, B/06, Mopka, Thana Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Shruti Kiran Mishra W/o Ashish Upadhayay Aged About 27 Years R/o Gayatri Parisar, B/06, Mopka, Thana Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Rupendra Upadhayay S/o Ashok Kumar Upadhayay Aged About 34 Years R/o Gayatri Parisar, B/06, Mopka, Thana Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Priya Sharma W/o Rupendra Upadhayay Aged About 32 Years R/o B/06, Gayatri Parisar, Colony Sarkanda, Thana Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vikas Pandey, Advocate ForRespondentNo.1/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09/04/2025 Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing.
Heard Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also 3 heard Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State and Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2.
2. The petition (Cr.M.P. No.882/2025) has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer :
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this instant petition and quash FIR bearing Crime No. 66/2024 dated 14.10.2024 and charge sheet bearing No. 66/24 dated 14.12.2024 filed against the petitioners by the Police Station Mahila Thana Bilaspur (CG) for commission of offence which is punishable under Sections 85,296,351(3), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS Act and the order dated 16.12.2024 passed in Criminal Case No. 18631/2024, passed by the Judicial magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, district Bilaspur (CG) whereby the Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the charge sheet and the entire consequential proceedings, in the interest of justice."
3. The petition (Cr.M.P. No.945/2025) has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer :
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this instant petition and quash FIR bearing Crime No. 14447/2024 dated 16.11.2024 and charge sheet bearing No. 1066/24 dated 17.11.2024 filed against the petitioners by the police station Sarkanda District Bilaspur CG for commission of offence which is punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the VNS Act and the order dated 25.11.2024 passed in Criminal Case No. 11494/2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaspur, District 4 Bilaspur (CG) whereby the Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the charge sheet and the entire consequential proceedings, in the interest of justice."
4. Prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner No.1/Rupendra Upadhyay got married with respondent No.2/Priya Sharma on 11.05.2023 as per Hindu rituals and customs. The petitioner No.1 is working in the private company whereas the respondent No.2 is a practicing Advocate at CG High Court. On 14.10.2024, the respondent No.2 filed a written complaint before the police station Mahila Thana, Bilaspur stating that the petitioner and his family members were subjecting her to harassment for demand of dowry. Due to the said dispute, the respondent No.2 left her matrimonial house and went to her parent's house. The FIR was lodged at Mahila Thana, Bilaspur against the petitioners on 14.10.2024 bearing Crime No. 66/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 85,296,351(3), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS Act.
5. In Cr.M.P. No. 882/2025, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made in the FIR and the entire charge sheet shows that none of the ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 85,296,351(3), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS Act is made out in the present case. He submits that the court had taken cognizance of the matter without considering the entire material on record as the court failed to see that the complainant is an Advocate and working in the CG High court and is residing with her parents. He submits that the petitioner has repeatedly threatened the petitioners for implicating them in a false case and the complaint has also been made by the 5 petitioners. The petitioners would like to bring on record certain facts which are germane for proper adjudication of this case. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the charge sheet has already been submitted before the competent court and the learned Court had already taken the cognizance of the charge sheet. He submits that the petitioners have already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned trial Court.
6. In Cr.M.P. No. 945/2025, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.3 got married with the respondent No.2 on 11.05.2023 as per Hindu customs and rituals. Petitioner No.1 is brother of the petitioner No.3 and petitioner No.2 is the sister-in-law of the petitioner No.3 and are residing at Sarkanda, Bilaspur. It is submitted that immediately after marriage, the petitioner No.1 started residing with respondent No.2 at Sarkanda. The respondent No.2 had lodged FIR against her husband/petitioner No.1 and his family members alleging that they have assaulted her and on the basis of which Crime No. 1447/2024 for the offence under Sections 296,115(2),351(2) and 3(5)of the BNS Act was lodged against the petitioners. He submits that the allegations as levelled against the petitioners are baseless and without any substance as the petitioners have never assaulted the complainant. He submits that though the charge sheet filed against the petitioners was filed without investigation yet by the order dated 25.11.2024 passed in Criminal case No. 11494/2024, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) took cognizance against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Sections 296,115(2),351(2) and 3(5)of the BNS Act.
6
7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in Cr.M.P. No. 882/2025, after completion of the investigation the Police concerned has filed the charge-sheet on 14.12.2024 before the Judicial Magistrate Fist Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) in Criminal Case No. 18631/2024 and in Cr.M.P. No. 945/2025 charge sheet has been filed on 17.12.2024 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 11494/2024, but till date no charge is framed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that an act to constitute ofence, the allegation should demonstrate the intention and act of the present petitioners towards the respondent No. 2, as the petitioners have never done any such act which falls under definition of Section 85 of the BNS and even if entire case of the prosecution would be taken in its own face value than also the ingredients of Section 85 of the BNS would not made out against the petitioners. He further states that no specific act of the petitioners have been attributed in the FIR and the petitioners have been implicated in crime in question only on the basis of vague, general and omnibus type statement of the complainant/wife with intent to harass the petitioners, therefore, allowing the continuation of criminal case against them would amount to abuse of process of law and thus, the impugned FIR, charge-sheet as well as criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) as Criminal Case No. 18631/2024 in Cr.M.P. No. 882/2025 and Criminal Case No. 11494/2024 in Cr.M.P. No. 945/2025 deserves to be quashed.
9. He also submits that petitioners No. 2 is mother-in-law of 7 respondent No. 2, a senior citizen, who does not keep well on a day to basis has also been roped in the crime by alleging absolute vague allegations, which is no manner constitutes any offence under Section 85 of the BNS.
10. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that considering the material available on record, it cannot be held that no prima facie case against the petitioners is made out. He would further submit that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS is extremely limited as FIR cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient material available on record.
11. Learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2/complainant, would submit that there are serious allegations against the petitioners for treating respondent No. 2 with cruelty. He would further submit that the respondent No.2 had left her matrimonial home with the consent of her in laws and her husband by taking a room on rent because during rain season it was not possible to stay there and she went to her matrimonial house only on Saturdays and Sundays. He submits that all of a sudden when the respondent No.2 received a communication by the Mahila Thana, Bilaspur that her husband has filed a complaint against her for reconciliation in respect of some family dispute, she has made application stating that she is ready and willing to live happily with her husband and his family members but due to demand of dowry by her in laws they are subjecting her to harassment and are refusing to keep the respondent. He further submits that the petitioner No.1 in Cr.M.P. No. 945/2025 ie. husband of respondent No.2 and his family members are harassing her and was not providing proper food, 8 therefore she gave application before the concerned Mahila Police Station where the police conducted counseling between the parties however, the matter could not be resolved. On 28.10.2023, the petitioners and his family members assaulted the respondent No.2 and she had to taken shelter in the house of her aunt and after enquiry, the concerned police station registered FIR and she was medically examined. He submits that there is a specific allegation against the petitioner for demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the respondent No.2. He submits that in the charge sheet, each and every date has been explained and on 02.01.2024, she was assaulted by the petitioner No. 3 & 4 and she informed the police and this itself shows a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. He would further submit that all 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 the BNSS, as such, it is the case where the petition deserves to be dismissed.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.
13. In compliance of the Court's order dated 10.03.2025, the matter has been referred to the Medication Center for amicable settlement between petitioner No.1/husband and respondent No. 2/wife, but both the parties are not ready to compromise the matter and to settle their dispute. Hence, the mediation has failed.
14. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar 9 Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Honb'ble Supreme Court has 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 and 506 of the IPC would not be justified as cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process.
15. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others, (2018) 14 SCC 452 the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 ofences are made out.
16. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620, it has been held by the Supreme Court relying upon the principle of law laid down in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others,1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 that criminal proceedings can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie ofence 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 10 the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) and further held that in absence of 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 (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 ofence 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 anyone 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 11 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....."
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab & Another {Cr.A. No. 4773/2024, decided on 26.11.2024} had, relying on the decision in Geeta Mehrotra (supra), Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others {(2022) 6 SCC 599}, Bhajan Lal (supra), and Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another {(2013) 10 SCC 591}, had quashed the FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
18. Very recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayan & Others v. State of Telangana & Another {Cr.A. No. 5199 of 2024, decided on 10.12.2024}, has observed as under:
A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognized fact, borne out of judicial experience, 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 generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized 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.
In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they 12 cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.
26. In fact, in the instant case, the first appellant and his wife i.e. the second respondent herein resided at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where he was working in Southern Railways. They were married in the year 2015 and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the second respondent gave birth to two children. Therefore, it cannot be believed that there was any harassment for dowry during the said period or that there was any matrimonial discord. Further, the second respondent in response to the missing complaint filed by the first appellant herein on 05.10.2021 addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting for closure of the said complaint as she had stated that she had left the matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a quarrel with the appellant No.1 because of one Govindan with whom the second respondent was in contact over telephone for a period of ten days.
She had also admitted that she would not repeat such acts in future. In the above conspectus of facts, we ind that the allegations of the second respondent against the appellants herein are too far-fetched and are not believable.
27. xxx xxx xxx
28. 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 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 husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalized allegations during matrimonial conlicts, 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. 13 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.
29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for therotection 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.
30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs.L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows:
"12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the 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 commission of 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 other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude 14 and in that process the parties lose their "young"
days in chasing their "cases" in different courts."
31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that 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 by the husband's close relatives 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 complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants."
19. In view of the aforesaid, the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the FIR, the charge-sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court.
20. In the complaint so made, the complainant has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners without being full particulars about date and place that all the petitioners including the husband treated her with cruelty for not bringing sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. There is no specific allegation regarding anyone of the petitioners except common and general allegations against all the 15 petitioners that they have demanded cash amount.
21. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, material available on record, perusing the FIR in which no specific allegations have been made and only bald and omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that in Cr.M.P. No. 882/2025, prima-facie no offence under Sections 85,296,351(3), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS Act is made out for prosecuting petitioner No.2-Sandhya Upadhyay, petitioner No.3 Ashish Upadhyay and petitioner No.4-Smt. Shruti Upadhyay for the above- stated ofences.
22. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, Criminal Case No.18631 of 2024 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) arising out of Crime No. 66 of 2024 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the ofences under Sections 85,296,351(3), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS Act is hereby quashed to the extent of petitioner No.2-Sandhya Upadhyay, petitioner No.3-Ashish Upadhyay and petitioner No.4-Smt. Shruti Upadhyay. Prosecution against her husband petitioner No.3-Ashish Upadhyay shall continue. Concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending against petitioner No.1-Rupendra Upadhyay strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of these observations made hereinabove.
23. In Cr.M.P. No. 945/2025, prima-facie no offence under Sections Sections 296,115(2),351(2) and 3(5)of the BNS Act is made out for prosecuting petitioner No.1- Ashish Upadhyay and petitioner No.2- Shruti Kiran Mishra for the above-stated ofences. 16
24. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, Criminal Case No.11494 of 2024 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) arising out of Crime No. 1447 of 2024 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the ofences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of BNS Act is hereby quashed to the extent of petitioner No.1-Ashish Upadhyay and petitioner No.2-Shruti Kiran Mishra. Prosecution against her husband petitioner No.3-Rupendra Upadhyay shall continue. Concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending against petitioner No.3-Rupendra Upadhyay strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of these observations made hereinabove.
25. The petitions under Section 528 of the BNSS are partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Digitally signed
by SUGUNA
SUGUNA DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2025.04.13
12:43:59 +0530