Chattisgarh High Court
Ajay Kumar Dahire vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 31 July, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
ANWAR
SHOAIB
ANWAR
Date:
2025:CGHC:37555-DB
2025.08.01
17:14:32
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2403 of 2024
1 - Ajay Kumar Dahire S/o Shri Rekhchand Dahire Aged About
28 Years R/o Village Salheghori Police Station Nawagarh,
District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Rekhchand Dahire S/o Late Awadha Dahire Aged About 58
Years R/o Village Salheghori Police Station Nawagarh, District-
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Smt. Laxmi Bai W/o Shri Rekhchand Dahire Aged About 55
Years R/o Village Salheghori Police Station Nawagarh, District-
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Jai Kumar Dahire S/o Shri Rekhchand Dahire Aged About 34
Years R/o Village Salheghori Police Station Nawagarh, District-
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Smt. Urmila Dahire W/o Shri Raj Kumar Dahire Aged About
35 Years R/o Village Salheghori Police Station Nawagarh,
District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Smt. Nageshwari Dahire W/o Shri Jai Kumar Dahire Aged
About 28 Years R/o Village Salheghori Police Station Nawagarh,
District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Sho Nawagarh, District-
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Smt. Pushpa Dahire W/o Ajay Kumar Dahire Aged About 33
Years D/o Shri Ubaran Das Barman, R/o Ward No. 15, Indra
Awas Colony Nawagarh P.S. Nawagarh, District- Bemetara,
2
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmad, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Vishwanath Prasad Shriwas, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 31.07.2025
1. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the application by making an order to quash the Crime No.87/2023 dated 02/04/2023 & quash the entire criminal proceedings pending before JMFC Bemetara, District:Bemetara as Criminal Case No.2003/2023 and discharge from the case to the petitioners."
2. As per mediation report dated 24/10/2024, mediation between the parties has failed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would that the petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law, petitioner No.3 is the mother-in-law, petitioner No.4 is the brother-in-law and petitioner Nos.5 & 6 are the sister-in-law of the respondent No.2/complainant. Marriage of petitioner No.1 was performed with the respondent No.2 on 02.05.2019 and 3 just after the marriage, she went to Salheghori along with her husband and she was residing with her husband. The respondent No. 2 during residing with her husband, always threatened him and his entire family members and she wants to live separately. He would submit that the victim used to quarrel with the family member of the petitioners and after sometime, she went to Indra Awas Colony Nawagarh District Bemetara where she delivered one male child in June 2020, but petitioner No. 1 and his family members have no knowledge about the fact of the delivery of the child. The husband tried to take his wife many times, but the complainant/respondent No.2 refused to live with him and forced to live separately from his parents. He further submits that 'n' numbers of social meetings and counselings were conducted, but she never wants to live with the parents of the petitioner No.1. On 02/04/2023, false complaint was lodged against the petitioners by the respondent No.2/complainant under Section 498-A, 34 of the IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the dowry demand has been made by the petitioners, due to which, offence under Section 498 A r/w 34 of IPC has been registered against the petitioners.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents.
4
6. The Supreme Court in the mater of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others 1 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 Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: -
7. "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.
1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 5 (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do 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 provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
6
(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."
8. Having noticed the scope of interference by this Court in the petition relating to quashment of FIR, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that in the impugned FIR, petitioners have been charged for offence under Sections 498- A, 34 of the IPC.
9. 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:-
"498 A. 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.7
Explanation.--For the purpose 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."
10. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to establish offence under Section 498A 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.
11. The word 'cruelty' within the meaning of Section 498/A 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 would attract Section 498/A of the IPC. Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC contemplates harassment of woman to coerce or any 8 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.
12. Similarly, in the matter of Sunder Babu and others v. State of Tamil Nadu2 delay in filing complaint against accused therein was taken note of by their Lordships of the Supreme Court holding the case to be covered by Category Seven of para-102 highlighted in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), the prosecution for offence under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was quashed.
13. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others3 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. 2 (2009) 14 SCC 244 3 (2018) 14 SCC 452 9
14. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), 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, 34 of the IPC would not be justified as cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process.
15. Having noticed the legal position qua quashing the FIR, the question would be whether taking the contents of the FIR as it is, offence under Sections 498-A, 34 of the IPC?
16. In the present case, prior to registration of the FIR a preliminary enquiry has been conducted and in the preliminary enquiry, it was found that there is prima facie cognizable case is made out against the petitioners, thus on the basis of said written report, offence under the aforementioned sections has been registered against the petitioners and investigation is going on.
17. In the complaint so made, the complainant has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners without being full particulars about and date and place. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners except common and general allegations against them.
18. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the 10 parties, material available on record; perusing the FIR in which no specific allegations have been made and only bald and omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioner No.2-Rekhchand Dahire (Father-in-law), No.3-Smt. Laxmi Bai (Mother-in-law), No.4-Jai Kumar Dahire (Brother-in-law), No.5- Smt. Urmila Dahire and No.6-Smt. Nageshwari Dahire(Sisters- in-laws); and specific allegations have been made against the petitioner No.1-Ajay Kumar Dahire/husband, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Section 498-A, 34 of the IPC is made out for prosecuting the petitioner No.2-Rekhchand Dahire (Father-in-law), No.3-Smt. Laxmi Bai (Mother-in-law), No.4-Jai Kumar Dahire (Brother-in-law), No.5- Smt. Urmila Dahire and No.6-Smt. Nageshwari Dahire(Sisters- in-laws) for the above-stated offences and the prosecution against them for the aforesaid offence is covered by Category 1, 3 & 7 of para-102 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) and as such, liable to be quashed.
19. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, FIR bearing No. 87/2023 registered at Police Station- Bemetra, District:Bemetara, Chhattisgarh on 02/04/2023 for offence under Sections 498-A, 34 of the IPC, charge-sheet dated 19/06/2023 and consequential proceeding in Criminal Case No.2003/2023 are hereby quashed to the extent of petitioner No.2-Rekhchand Dahire (Father-in-law), 11 No.3-Smt. Laxmi Bai (Mother-in-law), No.4-Jai Kumar Dahire (Brother-in-law), No.5-Smt. Urmila Dahire and No.6-Smt. Nageshwari Dahire(Sisters-in-law) of the respondent No.2/complainant. However, prosecution against the husband of respondent No.2 i.e. petitioner No.1-Ajay Kumar Dahire shall continue and be concluded expeditiously without being prejudice and influence from any observation made by this Court in the order.
20. Resultantly, the petition filed by the petitioner No.1/husband is dismissed and so far it relates to petitioner No.2-Rekhchand Dahire (Father-in-law), No.3-Smt. Laxmi Bai (Mother-in-law), No.4-Jai Kumar Dahire (Brother-in-law), No.5- Smt. Urmila Dahire and No.6-Smt. Nageshwari Dahire(Sisters- in-laws) stands allowed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Amardeep/Shoaib