Chattisgarh High Court
Hemant Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15522-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2922 of 2025
1 - Hemant Kumar S/o Devachand Das Aged About 36 Years R/o Village
Kanya Parisar Road Behind Dayanidhi Hopital Bishunpur P.S Gandhinagar,
Distt. Surguja (C.G.)
2 - Smt. Vimla W/o Devchand Das Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Kanya
Parisar Road Behind Dayanidhi Hopital Bishunpur P.S Gandhinagar, Distt.
Surguja (C.G.)
3 - Devchand Das S/o Late Dhannu Das Aged About 63 Years R/o Village
Kanya Parisar Road Behind Dayanidhi Hopital Bishunpur P.S Gandhinagar,
Distt. Surguja (C.G.)
4 - Yamini Das W/o Sirjan Das Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Kanya
Parisar Road Behind Dayanidhi Hopital Bishunpur P.S Gandhinagar, Distt.
Surguja (C.G.)
5 - Smt. Dipti Das D/o Devchand Das Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kanya
Parisar Road Behind Dayanidhi Hopital Bishunpur P.S Gandhinagar, Distt.
Surguja (C.G.)
6 - Shashank Das S/o Devchand Das Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kanya
VED Parisar Road Behind Dayanidhi Hopital Bishunpur P.S Gandhinagar, Distt.
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN Surguja (C.G.)
Digitally signed ... Petitioners
by VED
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Date: 2026.04.09 versus
18:23:13 +0530
2
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Sho, Police Station- Sitapur,
Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.)
2 - Smt. Gulabi Das W/o Hemant Kumar Aged About 36 Years R/o Village-
Amatoli, Police Station- Sitapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06/04/2026
1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State and Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, learned counsel for Respondent No.2/complainant.
2. The present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:
"I. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of BNSS 2023 filed by the petitioners.3
II. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 349/2024 registered on dated 01.12.2024 at Police Station - Sitapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) for the offence under section 85, 296, 115(2) of BNS.
III. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheet filed on dated 05.07.2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) (Annexure P-1) under section 85, 296, 115(2) of BNS.
IV. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 05.07.2025 (Annexure P-2) whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) has taken cognizance of the impugned charge sheet and registered the impugned criminal proceeding as Criminal Case No. 1458/2025 against the petitioners."
3. The present case arises out of a matrimonial dispute between Petitioner No.1 (husband) and Respondent No.2/complainant (wife), whose marriage was solemnized on 12.06.2023 as per Hindu rites and customs, and out of the wedlock, one male child was born. As per the prosecution case, the respondent No.2 initially resided at her matrimonial home and the relations between the parties remained cordial for a brief period of about three months; however, thereafter, allegations have been made regarding change in behaviour of the petitioners and demand of dowry in the form of an air-conditioner, coupled with mental and physical harassment. On the basis of such allegations, the respondent No.2 lodged a written report on 01.12.2024 at Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja, leading to registration of FIR bearing Crime No. 349/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 296 and 85 of the B.N.S. Upon completion of investigation, the 4 police filed charge-sheet dated 05.07.2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, which has been registered as Criminal Case No. 1458/2025, and cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court vide order dated 05.07.2025, which is under challenge in the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings are nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law, as the same have been initiated on the basis of false and concocted allegations with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners. It is contended that a bare perusal of the FIR and the charge-sheet would reveal that the allegations made therein are general and omnibus in nature, without specifying any particular instance of demand of dowry or act of cruelty attributable to the individual petitioners. It is further submitted that except for bald allegations regarding demand of an air-conditioner, no material particulars such as date, time or specific overt acts have been disclosed, thereby rendering the prosecution case inherently improbable. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, being aged parents, and petitioner Nos.4 to 6, who are residing separately on account of their studies and profession, have been falsely implicated without any basis. It is also submitted that prior to the present FIR, the respondent No.2 had approached the Mahila Thana, Ambikapur, where during counselling she had expressed unwillingness to take any action, however, subsequently, with mala fide intention, she lodged the present FIR on false and fabricated grounds. Thus, the 5 continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed. ******* He further submits that in compliance of the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre; however, the mediation proceedings have failed and no settlement could be arrived at between the parties. ******* He would place reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1, Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another2, Swapnil v. State of Madhya Pradesh 3, Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 4 (Para-24), Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 5, Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others6 and Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh 7 to contend that in cases involving vague and omnibus allegations, particularly against relatives of the husband, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.
5. Learned State counsel would submit that the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings have been initiated on the basis of a written complaint disclosing commission of cognizable offences, and upon due investigation, sufficient material has been collected against the 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 2 (2010) 7 SCC 667 3 (2014) 13 SCC 567 4 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620 5 (2018) 10 SCC 472 6 (2022) 6 SCC 599 7 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083 6 petitioners, culminating into filing of the charge-sheet before the competent Court. It is submitted that the allegations made by the complainant disclose a prima facie case under the relevant provisions of the B.N.S., and the learned trial Court has rightly taken cognizance after due application of mind. Learned State counsel further submits that at this stage, this Hon'ble Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., may not embark upon an appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact, which are matters to be tested during trial. Therefore, in view of the material available on record, the present petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant would submit that it is most respectfully contended that the impugned FIR clearly discloses the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 85, 296 and 115(2) of the B.N.S., as the complainant has specifically alleged that soon after the marriage, she was subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty on account of unlawful demand of dowry in the form of an air-conditioner. It is submitted that the complainant was harassed, ill- treated and compelled to leave the matrimonial home with a direction not to return unless the said demand is fulfilled, which clearly establishes a pattern of cruelty and harassment. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations made in the FIR are not vague but are specific in nature and disclose a prima facie case against all the petitioners, and the same have been duly substantiated during the course of investigation culminating into filing of charge-sheet. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court, upon due application of 7 mind, has rightly taken cognizance of the offences, and the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations can only be adjudicated during trial. Therefore, at this stage, no interference is warranted by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, and the present petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.
8. At the outset, it would be appropriate to consider the scope of interference in charge-sheet filed by the police against accused in extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS.
9. In the matter of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the accused can approach the High Court either under Section 528 of BNSS or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others 9 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 8 (1998) 5 SCC 749 9 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 8 paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC/528 of B.N.S.S should be exercised, which are as under: -
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any 9 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 criminal proceeding is a instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an 10 arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
11. The principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) has been followed recently by the Supreme Court in the matters of Google India Private Limited v. Visaka Industries10, Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 11 and Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar. v. State of Maharashtra and others 12". The Supreme Court in Google India Private Limited (supra), explained the scope of dictum of Bhajan Lal's case (supra) that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and "that too in the rarest of rare cases" as indicated in paragraph 103 therein of the report.
12. Having noticed the scope of interference by this Court in a petition seeking quashment of FIR/charge-sheet, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite evident that in the impugned charge-sheet, the petitioners have been prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 85, 296 and 115(2) of the B.N.S., arising out of Crime No. 349/2024 registered at Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja, and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur has taken cognizance of the said offences vide order dated 05.07.2025 in Criminal Case No. 1458/2025.
10 (2020) 4 SCC 162 11 (2020) 13 SCC 435 12 (2019) 18 SCC 191 11
13. The provisions relating to cruelty by husband or his relatives are now governed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 85 of the B.N.S. defines the offence of cruelty as under:
"85. 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 purposes of this section, 'cruelty' means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;
or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
14. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to establish an offence under Section 85 of the B.N.S., the prosecution must establish--
(i) that the woman is legally married;
(ii) that she has been subjected to cruelty or harassment; and
(iii) that such cruelty or harassment has been inflicted by the husband or by a relative of the husband, and the same is either of such a nature as is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, or is with a view to coercing 12 her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security.
15. The word "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 85 of the B.N.S. has been explained in the Explanation appended to the said section. It consists of two clauses, namely clause (a) and clause (b). To attract Section 85 of the B.N.S., it must be established that the cruelty or harassment caused to the wife is of such a nature as is likely to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical, or that such harassment was with a view to coercing her or her relatives to fulfil any unlawful demand. It is not every type of harassment or cruelty that would attract the provisions of Section 85 of the B.N.S. Explanation (b) to Section 85 specifically contemplates harassment of a woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security. Therefore, in order to bring the case within the ambit of clause (b), it must be shown that there was a specific unlawful demand made by the husband or his relatives and that the harassment was directly connected with such demand.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priya Vrat Singh and others v. Shyam Ji Sahai13 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:-
13 (2008) 8 SCC 232 13 "8. Further it is pointed out that the allegation of alleged demand for dowry was made for the first time in December, 1994. In the complaint filed, the allegation is that the dowry torture was made some times in 1992. It has not been explained as to why for more than two years no action was taken.
9. Further, it appears that in the complaint petition. apart from the husband, the mother of the husband, the subsequently married wife, husband's mother's sister, husband's brother in law and Sunita's father were impleaded as party.
No role has been specifically ascribed to anybody except the husband and that too of a dowry demand in February 1993 when the complaint was filed on 6.12.1994 i.e. nearly after 22 months. It is to be noted that in spite of service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of Respondent No.1."
17. Similarly, in the matter of Sunder Babu and others v. State of Tamil Nadu14 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 85 of BNS and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was quashed.
18. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a mere casual reference to the family members of the husband in the FIR as co-accused, in the absence of any specific allegation disclosing their active involvement, would not justify continuation of criminal proceedings against them. It was further held that where the complaint contains only vague and omnibus allegations against the relatives of the husband, taking cognizance 14 (2009) 14 SCC 244 14 against them would amount to abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, cognizance for offences relating to cruelty and allied allegations, now corresponding to Section 85 and other relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, would not be justified.
19. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others 15 their Lordships of the Supreme Court delineated the duty of the criminal Courts while proceeding against relatives of victim's husband and held that the Court should be careful in proceeding against distant relatives in crime pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and further held that relatives of husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations, unless specific instances of their involvement in offences are made out.
20. Recently, in the matter of Rashmi Chopra (supra), it has been held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra), that criminal proceedings can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie offence is disclosed. It was further held that the judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be permitted to be used as an instrument of oppression or harassment, and the High Court should not hesitate in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings where the case falls within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra). Their Lordships further held that in the absence of specific allegations against individual accused persons and where only general and omnibus allegations are made against all the accused, no offence relating to cruelty would be 15 (2018) 14 SCC 452 15 made out. Accordingly, the charges for the offence analogous to cruelty by husband or relatives, now covered under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, were quashed, holding the case to be covered under Category 7 as enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra), by observing 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
21. Having noticed the legal position with regard to quashment of FIR and charge-sheet, the question that arises for consideration is whether, taking the contents of the FIR and the charge-sheet as they stand, a prima facie case for offences punishable under Sections 85, 296 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is made out against the petitioners?
22. In the matter of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2022(6) SCC 599, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated as under:-
"10. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the appellants and respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the 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:-17
"14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498-A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement."
13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, it was also observed;
"4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non- bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride 18 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 also ensure that one 19 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."20
15. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP, it was observed:-
"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:
"12..... "there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts."
The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes."
16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, it was also observed that:-
21
"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 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 22 have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution."
23. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of "Charul Shukla V. State of UP and others" reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 476" that:-
"22. Furthermore, with respect to the allegations against the sister-in -law regarding the incitement of the complainant's husband in relation to the alleged extra-marital affair, the prosecution has failed to provide any specific detail and has not been able to elaborate upon the nature of the relationship or how those accusations purportedly affected complainant's relationship with her husband. It is apposite to note that upon the perusal of the records of the case, nothing material has been put forth to advance or substantiate the said allegations. Time and again, this Court has observed that merely stating certain vague and omnibus allegations without any cogent material evidence to support the same should not become a fillip to jump-start the criminal machinery of the State. At this juncture, we find it appropriate to quote the observations of this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 which is extracted as under:
"27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experiencee 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 23 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.....
xxx
30. 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 Page 22 of 26 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 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.
31. 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 24 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."
24. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it transpires from the FIR that the respondent No.2/complainant has made general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners stating that after a few months of marriage, their behaviour changed and they started harassing her by demanding an air-conditioner as dowry and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty, and ultimately asked her to go back to her parental home with a direction not to return without fulfilling the said demand. However, no specific date, time or particular incident of cruelty has been mentioned in the FIR or in the statements recorded during investigation. It is also apparent that the allegations are sweeping in nature and have been levelled against all family members without attributing any distinct role to each of them, particularly petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are aged parents, and petitioner Nos.4 to 6, who are stated to be residing separately on account of their studies and profession. Further, from the record it appears that prior to lodging of the present FIR dated 01.12.2024, the complainant had approached the Mahila Thana, Ambikapur, where during counselling she had expressed unwillingness to take any action, and thereafter, the present FIR has 25 been lodged, which also casts doubt on the prosecution story. From the material available in the charge-sheet and in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie no offence under Sections 85, 296 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is made out against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6, and the prosecution against them is squarely covered under Category 1, 3 and 7 of paragraph 102 of the judgment rendered in Bhajan Lal (supra), and as such, the same deserves to be quashed.
25. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis and in the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering that the mediation between the parties has failed, the FIR dated 01.12.2024 registered in Crime No. 349/2024 at Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 296 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the charge-sheet dated 05.07.2025 filed pursuant thereto bearing Criminal Case No. 1458/2025, and the entire criminal proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
26. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved