Chattisgarh High Court
Loknath Dadsena vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 December, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2024:CGHC:49435-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1829 of 2024
1 - Loknath Dadsena S/o Mohan Lal Dadsena Aged About 42 Years Occup Ex-
Armyman, R/o Ward No.10, Basna Thana And Tahsil Basna, Distt.-
Mahasamund (C.G.)
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dabhra, Disst.- Sakti (C.G.)
2 - Smt. Rajani Dadsena W/o Praveen Dadsena D/o Shree Tarachand
Dadsena Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kulba (Sindhitarai), Dist.- Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.)
3 - Mr. Praveen Dadsena S/o Late Jeevan Lal Dadsena Aged About 34 Years
R/o Behind Gytri Mandir Talapara Basna Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
AND
CRMP No. 1864 of 2024
1 - Praveen Dadsena S/o Late Jeevan Lal Dadsena Aged About 34 Years
(Wrongly Mentioned Lt. Monlal Dadsena In Chalan Page No. 14), R/o Behind
Gayatri Mandir, Taalpara Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
2 - Smt. Laxmi Dadsena W/o Late Jeevan Lal Dadsena Aged About 54 Years
R/o Behind Gayatri Mandir, Taalpara Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
3 - Akhilesh Dadsena S/o Late Jeevan Lal Dadsena Aged About 31 Years R/o
And Workplace - Indian Oil Co-Operation Limited, Jharsuguda (Odissa)
4 - Santosh Kumar Nashine S/o Radhu Nashine Aged About 49 Years R/o
VEDPRAKASH
Near Kendriya Vidyalay Mahasamund, P.S. And District Mahasamund (C.G.)
DEWANGAN
---Petitioner(s)
Digitally signed
by VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Date: 2024.12.21
17:04:47 +0530
2
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. Through - Station House Officer P.S.
Dabhra, District Sakti (C.G.)
2 - Rajani Dadsena W/o Praveen Dadsena, D/o Shri Tarachand Dadsena Aged
About 32 Years R/o Village - Kulba (Sindhitarai), District Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.),..(Complainant)
--- Respondent(s)
AND
CRMP No. 2501 of 2024
1 - Kunal Pansari S/o Shri Ramkrishna Pansari Aged About 37 Years R/o Maa
Dhanteshwari Mandir Road, Near Malsai Talab, Raipur, Tahsil And District -
Raipur Chhattisgarh Government Servant - ITI, Mana, Raipur Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur District - Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Superintendent Of Police Sakti, District - Sakti Chhattisgarh
3 - The Station House Officer Police Out Post - Fagram, Police Station
Dabhra, District - Sakti, Chhattisgarh
4 - Abc Nil
--- Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Respective Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
Ms. Reena Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent/Complainant : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
3
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
16/12/2024
1. All the three criminal miscellaneous petitions are arising out of the same crime number, therefore, all these petitions are being heard and decided together.
2. The petitioner- Loknath Dadsena (CRMP No. 1829 of 2024) is uncle-in-
law of the complainant and has filed the present petition for quashing of the FIR of crime No. 102 of 2024 with the following prayer:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the FIR no. 102/2024, under section- 498A, 377. 316, 294, 323, 34 of I.P.C at police station- Dabhra, District- Janjgir- Champa (now Sakti) (C.G.) and quash the proceeding of Criminal Case no. 302/2024 pending before JMFC, Dabhra, District- Janjgir- Champa (now Sakti) (C.G.), in the interest of justice."
3. In the CRMP No. 1864 of 2024, the petitioner No. 1- Praveen Dadsena, is the husband of the complainant, petitioner No. 2- Smt. Laxmi Dadsena is the mother-in-law of the complainant, petitioner No. 3- Akhilesh Dadsena is the brother-in-law of the complainant and petitioner No. 4- Santosh Kumar Nashine is the maternal uncle-in-law of the complainant, who also claimed quashing of the FIR of crime No. 102 of 2024 with the following relief:
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the charge- sheet filed in connection with Crime no. 102/2024, under Section 498-A, 377, 354, 316, 294, 323, 34 of I.P.C. at police station Dabhra, District- Janjgir Champa (now- Sakti) (C.G.) and also quash the proceeding of Criminal Čase no. 302/2024 pending before JMFC, Dabhra, District- Janjgir Champa (now-Sakti) (C.G.), in the interest of justice."4
4. In the CRMP No. 2501 of 2024, the petitioner- Kunal Pansari is the friend of husband of the complainant and he also has claimed quashing of the FIR with the following prayer:
"1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR dated 13.03.2024 and to quash the entire charge sheet filed against the petitioner in crime No. 102/2024, registered before Police Out Post
- Faguram, Police Station - Dabhra, District - Janjgir Champa (C.G) for the offence punishable U/s 498-A, 377, 316, 354, 294, 323, 34 of the IPC (Annexure P/1).
2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Criminal Case/proceedings registered bearing Criminal Case No. 302/2024 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhra, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G).
3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioners."
5. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the complainant and the petitioner Praveen Dadsena is solemnized on 11.03.2023 as per their rites and rituals and thereafter she started residing in her matrimonial house. It is alleged that immediately after the marriage, the present petitioners started demanding a car, Rs.10 lakhs cash and golden ornaments as dowry and started harassing her. It is also alleged that her husband was having extramarital affairs with another lady and used to commit unnatural sex with her after showing obscene video in mobile phone. When she made complaint about the behavior of her husband to her mother-in-law and other relatives, all of them have threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone. It is also alleged that the friend of her husband had also tried to make physical relation with her and outraged her modesty. When she conceived pregnancy, her husband had kicked on her abdomen by which she suffered miscarriage. The family members of her husband 5 have instigated her husband for throwing her out from their house and ultimately she was being thrown out from there. Then she lodged report against the accused persons.
6. The police has registered the offence under Sections 498-A, 377, 354, 316, 294, 323 and 34 of IPC on 13.03.2024 on the written report made by the complainant against the present petitioners/accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the aforesaid offences against the present petitioners/accused persons before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, where the criminal case No. 302/24 has been registered and the trial of the case is pending before there.
7. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing in CRMP No. 1829 of 2024 for the petitioner Loknath Dadsena would submit that the present petitioner is the uncle-in-law of the complainant. He is residing separately from the house of the husband of the complainant and has nowhere concerned with the alleged act. Only to create a pressure upon the family, all the family members have been made as an accused. He would further submit that the material available on record clearly shows that the complainant is not interested to reside with her husband and only to create a ground for her separation and to extort money from the petitioner, she raised allegation against him. He would further submit that it is the dispute between husband and wife and to settle her grievance, the present petitioner has been made as an accused. There is no specific allegation in the complaint except the bald and omnibus allegation that he instigated her husband to left her and to get divorced. 6 He would further submit that for constituting of an offence, the requirement is of cruelty and the cruelty is defined under Section 498-A of the IPC, according to which, any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to derive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or to danger to life, limb or health, which is not present in the complaint as well as in the statement and written report against the present petitioner. He further contended that where allegation made in the FIR is so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which a prudent man can reach to just conclusion that there is no any sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, as such the petition deserves to be allowed and the FIR bearing crime No. 102 of 2024 registered at Police Station Dabhra, District Sakti and entire criminal proceeding pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhra, in criminal case No. 302 of 2024 deserves to be quashed.
8. Ms. Reena Singh, learned counsel appearing in CRMP No. 1864 of 2024 for the petitioners, who are the husband, mother-in-law, brother-in- law and maternal uncle-in-law have vehemently submitted that the report lodged by the complainant is after thought only to settle her ego. The complainant does not want to reside with her husband for which she made frivolous allegation. She further submitted that the complainant herself is having relation with another person with whom she visited to Jaipur, Rajasthan on the pretext of her studies, she regularly pressurizes upon her husband and in-laws for going to Jaipur for her studies. Her husband himself has seen her in a hotel along with the said person at Jaipur and then he took her back along with him and this was the reason of the dispute between them. She would also submit 7 that a numerous complaint has been made by the petitioner No.1/husband of the complainant to the various authorities including police authorities and intimating about the behaviour of the complainant, but no action has been taken by them. She would also submit that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners No. 2 to 4 regarding any cruelty or harassment and the omnibus allegations have been made against them, they being the distant relative of the complainant and nowhere involved in the family affairs of the complainant and the petitioner No.1, the FIR as well as criminal proceeding against them may be questioned.
9. Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRMP No. 2501 of 2024, would submit that the petitioner in the present petition Kunal Pansari is the friend of the husband of the complainant. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant and having evil eye upon her. The allegation made against the present petitioner is absolutely false, as it can never been imagined that he may commit an offence in presence of the other family member. Even if no report has been lodged against the present petitioner at the time when he allegedly outraged her modesty or there is no intimation given by her to her parents regarding the behaviour of the present petitioner. Only to create pressure upon her husband, she made allegation against the present petitioner, therefore, the offence against the present petitioner as well as the criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed.
8
10. On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent No.1/State, in all the three petitions would submit that after due investigation, the petitioners have been charge- sheeted for the aforesaid offences and prima facie material collected during the investigation are sufficient to put the petitioners at trial and they are facing trial of the case. 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 482 of the CrPC or 528 of BNSS is 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 also submit that the allegations of cruelty is a question of fact to be established during trial, as such, all the petitions deserves to be dismissed.
11. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, would submit that after due investigation, the jurisdictional police has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners in which there are serious allegations against them for treating her with cruelty and there are sufficient allegations against her husband regarding the unnatural sexual intercourse with her. He would further submit that all the submissions based on behalf of the petitioners relates to the question of fact, that can be considered during the course of trial and that cannot be considered at this stage that too in proceeding under Section 482 of CrPC, 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.
9
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the documents annexed with the petition with utmost circumspections.
13. This Court, vide order dated 16.07.2024 referred the matter for mediation before the High Court Mediation Centre to get the dispute resolved amicably by the parties, but vide mediation report dated 13.09.2024, it is intimated that the mediation between the parties failed.
14. At the outset, it would be appropriate to consider the scope of interference in the charge sheet filed by the police against accused persons in extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.
15. 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 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.
16. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v.
Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the 10 Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC 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 channelized 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 controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific 11 provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing capacious 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."
17. The principle of law laid down in State of Haryana and others v.
Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 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.
18. 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, four petitioners have been charged for offences under Sections 498-A, 377, 354, 316, 294, 323, 34 of the IPC.
12
19. 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 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."
20. 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.
21. 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, 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 13 would attract Section 498A of the IPC. 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 the husband or any of his relatives with respect to money or of some valuable security.
22. 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 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."
23. 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 14 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.
24. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, 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.
25. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others, (2018) 14 SCC 452 their Lordships of the Supreme Court delineated the duty of the criminal Courts while proceeding against relatives of victim's husband and held that the Court should be careful in proceeding against distant relatives in crime pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and further held that relatives of husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations, unless specific instances of their involvement in offences are made out.
26. Recently, in the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620, 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 15 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 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....."16
27. 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 appellants in-laws are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed.?
11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498-A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498-A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.
12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P. , has observed:-
"14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498-A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious 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.17
At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement."
13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, it was also observed;
"4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non- bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand- fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested."
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 18 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 relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful."
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 19 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 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 20 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."
28. 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, offences as alleged are made out against the petitioners?
29. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage between the petitioner Praveen Dadsena and the complainant is solemnized on 11.03.2023 and immediately thereafter, her uncle-in-law, maternal uncle-in-law have started demanding a car, Rs.10 lakhs and golden ornaments harassed her for demand of dowry and her husband has committed unnatural sexual intercourse with her after showing her obscene video in mobile phone and when she informed her in-laws about the behaviour of her husband, they pressurized her to give him a divorce and when she conceived pregnancy, her husband kicked her on her abdomen by which she suffered miscarriage and ultimately she was thrown out from her matrimonial house on 06.01.2024 and then she lodged a written complaint to the police on 13.03.2024. In the complaint so made, the 21 complainant has made the omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners except the allegation against her husband specifically with respect to unnatural sexual intercourse and her behaviour. The allegations against the uncle-in-law, maternal uncle-in-law, mother-in- law, brother-in-law and friend of her husband are 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, except for common and general allegations against all the petitioners.
30. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, material available on record, perusing the FIR as well as charge sheet in which only the bald and omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioners- Loknath Dadsena, Smt. Laxmi Dadsena, Akhilesh Dadsena, Santosh Kumar Nashine and Kunal Pansari. We are of the considered opinion that prima facie no offence as alleged are made out for prosecuting the petitioner Loknath Dadsena (petitioner in CRMP No. 1829 of 2024), petitioner No.2 Smt. Laxmi Dadsena, petitioner No. 3 Akhilesh Dadsena and petitioner No. 4 Santosh Kumar Nashine in CRMP No. 1864 of 2024 and petitioner Kunal Pansari in CRMP No. 2501 of 2024 for the above stated offences and the prosecution against them for the aforesaid offences is covered by the category 1, 3 and 7 of Para 102 of the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), and as such, liable to be quashed. As a fall out and consequence of the above stated legal analysis, the criminal case No. 302 of 2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa (now Sakti) arising out of the crime No. 22 102 of 2024 registered at Police Station Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa (now Sakti) for the offence under Section 498-A, 377, 354, 316, 294, 323, 34 of IPC are hereby quashed to the extent of petitioner Loknath Dadsena (uncle-in-law), Smt. Laxmi Dadsena (mother-in-law), Akhilesh Dadsena (brother-in-law), Santosh Kumar Nashine (maternal uncle-in-law) and Kunal Pansari (friend of husband of the complainant). The prosecution against her husband i.e. Praveen Dadsena (petitioner No.1 in CRMP No. 1864 of 2024) shall continue.
31. It is made clear that all the observations made in this order are for the purpose of deciding the petitions filed by the petitioners hereinabove, and this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter and concerned trial Court will decide the criminal case pending against Praveen Dadsena strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of these observations made hereinabove.
32. The CRMP Nos. 1829 of 2024, 2501 of 2024 are allowed. The CRMP No. 1864 of 2024 is allowed with respect to the petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4. However, the CRMP No. 1864 of 2024 is dismissed with respect to the petitioner No.1 Praveen Dadsena.
33. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved