Chattisgarh High Court
Aditya Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
2026:CGHC:9813-DB
Digitally signed by V
PADMAVATHI
Date: 2026.03.03
NAFR
17:33:57 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 312 of 2026
1 - Aditya Agrawal S/o Sunil Agrawal Aged About 32 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As
Suneel Agrawal)
2 - Sarda Agrawal W/o Sunil Agrawal Aged About 50 Years
Both the above petitioners are residents of Purani Basti, Ward No. 9, Kanta Banji,
Police Station- Kantibhaji, Distt. Balangir, Odisha.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Superintendent Of Police Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgrh.
3 - The Station House Officer P.S. Mahila Thana, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Kashish Agrawal W/o Aditya Agrawal, daughter of Ashok Kumar Agrawal, Presently
residing at House No. 11, Gajanandpuram Colony, Police Station-City Kotwali,
Raigarh, Tahsil And Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners : Shri Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate For Respondent-4/wife : Shri Krishna Tandon, Advocate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 312 of 2026 2 Heard Shri Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State, and Shri Krishna Tandon, learned counsel for respondent-4/wife.
1. Petitioners have filed the present petition for the following reliefs:
"(i) Quash the FIR No.13 of 2025 dated 18.06.2025 registered against the Petitioners at Police Station-Mahila Thana, Raigarh for offence punishable under Sections 85, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and the consequent Final Report/Charge Sheet No.09/2025 dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) filed against the petitioners for offence punishable under for offence punishable under Sections 85, 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
(ii) Quash and/or set aside the entire consequential criminal proceedings particularly the Criminal Case no.840/2025 (Annexure )-2) pending consideration before the Court of Judicial magistrate Class-1, Raigarh (CG), including all the subsequent orders and incidental orders.
(iii) Quash and/or set aside the cognizance order dated 04.07.2025 (forms part of Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Class-1, Raigarh (CG) in the aforesaid criminal case.
Crmp 312 of 2026 3
(iv) Any other orders in favour of the petitioners may be passed as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. It transpires from the order-sheet dated 30.01.2026 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 19.02.2026 Mediation centre has submitted its report stating therein that mediation between the parties failed/not settled.
4. Brief facts of the case are that, the marriage between petitioner-1 and respondent-4/complainant was performed on 13.07.2024 in the premises of Shyam Mandir, Village-Bhatli, Odisha according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, father of complainant gave some money and jewellery, according to their capacity. Petitioner-1 was employed in Delhi at the time of their marriage, and as such, after marriage, on 22.07.2024, went to Delhi from her in-laws house at Kantabanji, Odisha. It is alleged that during her stay she was physically and mentally harassed by her husband in Delhi, after which he left her at her matrimonial home in Kantabanji, Odisha and returned to Delhi. Petitioners mortgaged all jewellery of the complainant and when she confronted them, she was subjected to physical abuse, and additional Crmp 312 of 2026 4 demand of Rs.10,00,000/- was made. Finally, on 29.11.2024 petitioner-1 brought the complainant to her parental house and demanded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from her parents to fulfill the demand, and when they were unable to reach the demand, he left her there and went off. It was also informed to her brother and father that if the demanded amount is not paid, they would not take back the complainant. As such, since then complainant is residing at her parental home. On the basis of complainant's written complaint, FIR- 13 of 2025 was registered on 18.06.2025 at the Police Station - Mahila Thana, Raigarh for the offence under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even if the allegations in the impugned FIR and charge-sheet are taken in its face value, then also ingredients of offence of Section 85 and Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 is not made out against the petitioners. 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 concocted 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. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased Crmp 312 of 2026 5 to allow the present petition and grant the reliefs sought by the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Private respondent opposes the petition and submits that the FIR in question was registered on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the complainant/wife, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner and his family members. It is further submitted that, upon perusal of the complaint, the police found a prima facie case made out against the petitioners and accordingly registered the FIR. Learned State counsel would further submit that the allegations levelled in the FIR disclose the commission of cognizable offences, which require appreciation of evidence and adjudication of disputed questions of fact. Such issues cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 of the BNSS, as the same fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be considered during trial. Hence, it is contended that these allegations, by themselves, do not 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, with liberty to the petitioners to raise all permissible defences before the learned trial Court.
7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have perused the documents appended with the petition.
Crmp 312 of 2026 6
8. At the outset, it would be appropriated to consider the scope of interference in the FIR, and charge-sheet filed by the police against accused persons in extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC/528 of the BNSS.
9. 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.
10. The Hon'ble 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 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 Crmp 312 of 2026 7 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.
Crmp 312 of 2026 8 (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.
Crmp 312 of 2026 9 (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."
11. 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 Crmp 312 of 2026 10 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 the petition relating to quashment of FIR, and charge-sheet reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that in the impugned FIR, and charge- sheet the petitioners have been charged for offence under Section 85 and Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
13. Section 85 and 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 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."
14. 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 Crmp 312 of 2026 11
(iii) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by relative of her husband.
15. 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.
16. 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:-
Crmp 312 of 2026 12 "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 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.
Crmp 312 of 2026 13
18. 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 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.
19. 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 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.
20. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra Vs State of UP and another, (2019) 15 SCC 357 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 Crmp 312 of 2026 14 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 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 Crmp 312 of 2026 15 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....."
21. 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 and charge-sheet at their face value, any prima facie offence under the offences as alleged by the complainant/wife are made out against the petitioners, or not.
22. It is case of the prosecution that the marriage of complainant was solemnized with petitioner-1 on 13.07.2024 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.13 of 2025 was registered at Police Station-Mahila Thana, Raigarh, CG.
Crmp 312 of 2026 16
23. However, a careful examination of the FIR reveals that the allegations made by the complainant are general, omnibus and lacking in specific particulars regarding dates, instances, or overt acts attributable 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 and Section 3(5)of the BNS, 2023.
24. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the material placed on record, particularly the nature of allegations in the FIR, and the charge-sheet, which are bald, omnibus and inherently inconsistent, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prima facie offence under Section 85 and Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 are made out against the petitioners. 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 case (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.
Crmp 312 of 2026 17
25. As a natural consequence of the above analysis, FIR No.13 of 2025 dated 18.06.2025 registered at Police Station-Mahila Thana, Raigarh, CG for the offence under Sections 85 read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the consequent final Report/Charge-sheet-09 of 2025 dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure P1) filed against the petitioners; entire consequential criminal proceedings particularly the Criminal Case-840 of 2025 (Annexure P2) pending consideration before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh(CG) and cognizance order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Class-1, Raigarh CG in the criminal case and the consequential proceedings against the petitioners are hereby quashed. The petition is accordingly allowed.
26. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
Sd/- Sd Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
padma