Chattisgarh High Court
Amar Singh Rathore vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
Digitally signed by
V PADMAVATHI
Date: 2026.03.03
12:03:15 +0530
2026:CGHC:9812-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 275 of 2026
1 - Amar Singh Rathore S/o Sukhnandan Rathore Aged About 33 Years
2 - Sukhnandan Rathore S/o Radhelal Rathore Aged About 63 Years
3 - Ahilya W/o Sukhnandan Rathore Aged About 61 Years
R/o Ward No. 11, Purani Basti, Sadak Para Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa C.G.
4 - Ajit Rathore S/o Sukhnandan Rathore Aged About 37 Years
5 - Rajani Rathore W/o Ajit Rathore Aged About 33 Years
R/o Village Pathorta, Tahsil Itarsi, District Narmadapuram (M.P.)
6 - Anju Rathore W/o Naveen Rathore Aged About 36 Years
7 - Naveen Rathore S/o Hanuman Prasad Rathore Aged About 42 Years
R/o Gurughasidas Ward Champa, District Janjgir-Champa C.G.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Janjgir,
District Janjgir-Champa C.G.
2 - Smt. Archana Rathore W/o Amar Singh Rathore Aged About 23 Years At Present
R/o Deepka Quarter No. M.Q. 68, Azad Chowk Gali No. 3, Deepka Police Station
Deepka, District Korba C.G. ...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners : Shri Gaurav Singhal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Nitansh Jaiswal, PL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25.02.2026 Crmp 275 of 2026 2 Heard Shri Gaurav Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri Nitansh Jaiswal, PL appearing for the respondent/State.
1. Petitioners have filed the present petition with the following prayer:
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the impugned FIR baring Crime No.33/2026 dated 09.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) registered for the offence under Section 04 of Dowry Prohibition Act and 85 Read with Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita by the Police of Police Station Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (CG) registered against the petitioners, in the interest of justice accordingly."
2. It transpires from the order-sheet dated 28.01.2026 that the matter being matrimonial in nature, it was sent for mediation. Pursuant to said order, the petitioner has also deposited Rs.1,00,000/- for the mediation purpose, and the said amount has been received by the respondent-2/wife.
3. After conducting mediation sessions, on 17.02.2026 Mediation centre has submitted its report stating therein that mediation between the parties failed/not settled.
4. By way of this petition, petitioners are seeking quashment of the FIR bearing Crime No.33 of 2026 dated 09.01.2026 registered for the Crmp 275 of 2026 3 offence under Sections 04 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'DP Act') and Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS, 2023'), by the Police of Police Station- Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa, CG.
5. The facts of the case in brief are that, the marriage between petitioner-1 and respondent No.2/complainant was solemnized on 27.06.2025 according to Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that the family members of the complainant gave dowry commensurate with their status. It is also alleged that father of the complainant also gave cash amont of Rs.7,00,000/- and a Car to the petitioner. Immediately after marriage, complainant was subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty for demand of additional dowry, as well as land from her parents. She was restrained form visiting her parental home, however, for Navratri Festival, complainant had gone to her parental home, but she was not brought back to her matrimonial home. In this regard social meeting was held on 26.10.2025. On 20.11.2025, petitioner-1 left the complainant, who was five months' pregnant, at the Family Counselling Centre, Janjgir. Ultimately, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and since then residing at her parental home. On the basis of written complaint, FIR- 33 of 2026 was registered on 09.01.2026 at the Police Station Janjgir, for the offence under Sections 04 of the DP Act, and Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
Crmp 275 of 2026 4
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the allegations in the impugned FIR and charge-sheet are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of alleged offences. At the most, the case reflects ordinary matrimonial discord and temperamental incompatibility, which does not amount to cruelty. The contents of the FIR disclose continued cohabitation, repeated reconciliations and voluntary resumption of marital life, such admitted facts completely negate any allegation of continuous, grave or proximate cruelty required to attract criminal liability. Allegations levelled against the petitioners are fabricated and concoted story has been narrated by the complainant. The FIR discloses a case of ordinary matrimonial discord being given a criminal colour, amounting to abuse of process and causing grave prejudice to the petitioners. Therefore, the petition may be allowed and quash the impugned FIR, and all consequential proceedings of the criminal case.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the petition and submits that the FIR in question was registered on the basis of a written complaint made by the complainant/wife alleging the cruelty she was subjected to, by the petitioner and his family members. FIR was registered as they found a prima facie case to be made out against the petitioners. Learned State counsel would further submit that the allegations levelled in the FIR disclose the commission of cognizable offence, which require appreciation of evidence and determination of disputed questions of fact, and the same cannot be adjudicated in Crmp 275 of 2026 5 proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 of BNSS and the same to be examined by the trial Court during trial and do not, by themselves, constitute a ground for quashment of the criminal proceedings at the threshold. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the State prays that the petition may be dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioners to raise all permissible defences before the trial Court.
8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have perused the documents appended with the petition.
9. At the outset, it would be appropriated to consider the scope of interference in FIR/charge-sheet filed by the police against accused persons in extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC/528 of the BNSS.
10. In the matter of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, 1998) 5 SCC 749 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the accused can approach the High Court either under Section 482 of the CrPC/528 of BNSS or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to have the proceeding quashed against the accused when the complaint does not make out any case against them.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the mater 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 Crmp 275 of 2026 6 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/528 of BNSS 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 Crmp 275 of 2026 7 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 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 Crmp 275 of 2026 8 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.
(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 Crmp 275 of 2026 9 the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
12. The principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) has been followed recently by the Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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.
13. 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, the petitioners have been charged for offence under Section 04 of the DP Act, and Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
14. Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 deals with offence of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband, and it 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 Crmp 275 of 2026 10 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.
15. Section 04 of the DP Act defines the offence as under:
"4. Penalty for demanding dowry.-- If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months. "
16. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that in order to establish offence under Section 85 of the BNS, 2023 (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.
Crmp 275 of 2026 11
17. The word 'cruelty' within the meaning of Section 85 of the BNS, 2023 has been explained in Section 86 of the BNS, 2023. It consists of two clauses namely clause (a) and clause (b). To attract Section 85 of the BNS, 2023, 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 85 of the BNS, 2023. Section 86(b) of the BNS, 2023 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 Section 86(b) of the BNS, 2023, 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.
18. The Hon'ble 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 Crmp 275 of 2026 12 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."
19. 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 Hon'ble 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.
20. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra Vs State of UP (2012) 10 SCC 741, Hon'ble 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 Crmp 275 of 2026 13 involvement. It was held that cognizance of matter against them for offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC would not be justified as cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process.
21. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others, 15 (2018) 14 SCC 452 their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delineated the duty of the criminal Courts while proceeding against relatives of victim's husband and held that the Court should be careful in proceeding against distant relatives in crime pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and further held that relatives of husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations, unless specific instances of their involvement in offences are made out.
22. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra (supra) it has been held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble 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 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 Hon'ble 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 Crmp 275 of 2026 14 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 Crmp 275 of 2026 15 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....."
23. Having noticed the legal position governing the quashment of FIR and charge-sheet, the question that arises for consideration is whether, taking the allegations made in FIR No. 33 of 2026 at its face value, any prima facie offence under the offences as alleged by the complaiannt/wife are made out against the petitioners, or not.
24. It is case of the prosecution that the marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with petitioner-1 on 27.06.2025 according to Hindu rites and rituals, and that soon thereafter she was subjected to cruelty, harassment and demand of more dowry by the petitioners. On the basis of her written complaint, FIR No.33 of 2026 was registered at Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa.
25. However, a careful examination of the FIR reveals that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are general, omnibus and lacking in specific particulars regarding dates, instances, or overt acts attributable Crmp 275 of 2026 16 to the petitioners. The later allegations made in the FIR reflect substantial improvements and embellishments inconsistent with her earlier version. Except broad and vague assertions that the petitioners ill-treated her and reiteration of adverse situations between the parties, no specific allegation is made against the petitioner-husband to constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 85 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the DP Act.
26. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the material placed on record, particularly the nature of allegations in the FIR , which are bald, omnibus and inherently inconsistent, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prima facie offence under Section 85 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the DP Act is made out against the petitioner. The allegations do not disclose any specific conduct amounting to cruelty as defined under Section 85 of the BNS, 2023, nor do they disclose any unlawful demand of dowry so as to satisfy Section 86(b) of the BNS, 2023. The prosecution appears to be covered by Category 1, 3 and 7 of paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal (supra), being based on vague assertions, improvements, and indications of mala fide arising out of matrimonial discord and disagreement. Accordingly, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
27. As a natural consequence of the above analysis,FIR bearing No. 33 of 2026 registered at Police Station-Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa Crmp 275 of 2026 17 Chhattisgarh on 09.01.2026 for offence under Section 04 of the DP Act and Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, and the consequential proceedings against the petitioners are hereby quashed. The petition is accordingly allowed.
28. The petitioner is entitled for refund of the amount deposited by him before the Mediation Center of this Court in compliance of the order dated 28.01.2026.
29. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
padma