Chattisgarh High Court
Rahul Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 April, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:19622-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1875 of 2024
1. Rahul Sharma S/o Late Rajendra Kumar Sharma Aged About 28
Years.
2. Vinay Sharma S/o Late Rajendra Kumar Sharma Aged About 26
Years.
3. Vikas Sharma S/o Late Rajendra Kumar Sharma Aged About 23
Years.
4. Smt. Pushpa Sharma W/o Rajendra Kumar Sharma Aged About
50 Years.
All are R/o Village Pamgarh (Near Cenal Sasha Road) PS-
Pamgarh Distt.- Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Petitioners
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - SHO Sarsiwa Distt. - Sarangarh,
C.G.
2. Smt. Ankita Dubey W/o Shri Rahul Sharma, D/o Manoj Kumar
Dubey Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Sarsiwa Tah Bhatgaon
District Sarangarh - Bilaigarh, C.G.
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondent /State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30/04/2025
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC with following relief(s):
"This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the application by making an order to quash the crime no. 479/2023 dated 07.11.2023 & quash the final report dated 27.11.2023 and also quash the entire criminal proceeding pending before JMFC Bhatgaon Distt. Bhatgaon as criminal case no. 612/2023 and discharge from the case to the applicant.."
2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that marriage of respondent No.2/Smt. Ankita Dubey was solemnized with petitioner No.1/Rahul Sharma on 22.02.2023 as per Hindu Customs and rituals. After marriage, respondent No.2 always threatened her husband and in-laws and also quarreling with them as she wanted to reside separately. Respondent no.2 had stayed in her matrimonial home only one month after marriage and, thereafter, she went to her parental home ie Sarsiwa, District Saragarh with her husband (petitioner no.1). During residing at parental home, respondent No.2 has tortured her husband (petitioner no.1) and also committed mar-pit with him and, thereafter, stating that she cannot waist her time with him thrown out him from the parental home, hence, petitioner no.1 return back 3 to his home ie Pamgarh and, thereafter started residing there and going to duty as per daily routine. On 26.06.2024, respondent no. 2 and her brothers were came to the duty place of petitioner No.1 and took him to the Nawagarh, where respondent no.2 and her family member tortured the petitioner No.1 and also pressurizing to give the divorce to respondent No.2. They also threatened the petitioner No.1 to implicate him and his entire family members in false case, hence, petitioner no.1 has signed the agreement before the Notary, copy of which is annexed as Annexure A-2. After execution of said agreement before the Notary, petitioner No.1 also made an complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh -Bhilai stating therein that his in- laws threatened him and his family members to implicate in false case. It is further mentioned that just after one weeks of the marriage, his wife i.e. respondent no.2 started quarreling with him and her in-law's stating that she did not want to live at matrimonial family. On 02.05.2023, she called her mother, father and brothers and left the matrimonial house with entire jewelries. Petitioner No.4 (mother of petitioner No.1) has also lodged report/complaint against her son and daughter-in-law (petitioner No.1 & respondent No.2) mentioned therein that they quarrel with her. Based on report lodged by respondent No.2, offence under Section 498 A, 34 of IPC has been registered against the petitioners.
3. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is husband, petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are brother-in-law, 4 petitioner No.4 is mother-in-law of respondent No.2/complainant (wife). They have residing separately, therefore, how can possible to commit the offence under Section 498 A, 34 of IPC. The petitioner No.1 has already made complaint against his in-laws for false implication, but the Police Authorities concerned have taken any action/proceeding against them. Respondent no.2/wife during residing with her husband always threatened her husband and entire family members, therefore, petitioner No.4 (mother) has made a complaint before the SHO -Pamgarh. The DGP/State Government issued the policy/direction to the every police station mentioning that after receiving of complaint regarding demand of dowry or cruelty, the Police has given the opportunity to the matrimonial family and recorded the statements of both sides and, thereafter, registered the FIR, but in the case of the petitioners, the police authority concerned has not complied with the alleged Policy/direction. Hence, petitioners have come before this Court with the aforesaid prayers.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/Respondent No.1 submits that once a complaint is received by the police and prima facie cognizable offence is made out, the police is bound to register the FIR and proceed in accordance with law. As such, the police has registered the FIR, investigated the matter and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the petitioners before concerned trial Court and the trial is pending consideration.
5
5. Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/wife submits that the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief as respondent No.2 has been subjected to cruelty and harassment on the ground of demand of dowry and this petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. He would next contend that the mediation between the parties has failed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition.
7. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1, the 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.
8. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others2 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 6 roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations, unless specific instances of their involvement in offences are made out.
9. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another3, 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 others4 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 (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 offence under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act are general and sweeping.3
2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 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....."
10. The 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. 8
11. Very recently, the 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:
"25. 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- recognised 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 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. 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 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 9 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 find 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 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 10 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 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.
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 11 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 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 12 to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants." Observing the aforesaid, the Apex Court quashed the FIR, the charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court.
12. In the complaint so made, the respondent No.2/complainant has only made omnibus and general allegations against in-laws (petitioner Nos.2 to 4) without being full particulars about date and place that they have treated her with cruelty for demand of dowry. There is no specific allegation regarding them except common and general allegations that they have demanded cash amount. So far as Petitioner No.1/husband is concerned, there is specific allegation against him regarding harassment for demand of dowry.
13. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, material/evidence available on record, particularly the FIR in which no specific allegations have been made and only bald and omnibus allegations have been levelled against in-laws (petitioner Nos.2 to 4), we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Section 498A/34 of the IPC is made out for prosecuting petitioner Nos.2 to 4 for the above-stated offences.
14. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the charge-sheet/final report dated 27.11.2023 filed in Crime No.479/2023 for the offence under Section 498-A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the 13 Criminal Case No.612/2023, pending before the JMFC, Bhatgaon, District :Bhatgaon, are hereby quashed to the extent of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 (in-laws of respondent No.2).
15. Prosecution against the petitioner No.1-Rahul Sharma (husband of respondent No.2) shall continue. Concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending against petitioner No.1 strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of these observations made hereinabove.
16. In the result, present petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- S
Sd/ (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
J.