For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, PL
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
30/04/2025
Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners
as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, for the
State/Respondent and Mr. Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel for
Respondent No. 2/complainant.
2. The present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed
" It is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to allow the application by
making an order to quash the crime No. 20/2025
dated 25.02.2025 for the offence under Sections
85,296, 115(2), 3(5) of the BNS Act, 2023, FIR
pending before the police station Mahila Thana
Bilaspur as Crime No. 20/2025 and discharge
from the case to the applicant."
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner No.2 is the
husband of respondent No.2/complainant and petitioner No. 1,3,4,5 & 6
who are brother-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law and
sister-in-law of the complainant. It is alleged that after marriage,
respondent No.2 and the the petitioner No.2/Keshav Khare were
residing separately. The allegation against the complainant/respondent
No.2 is that she used to threaten the family members of the petitioner
No.2 and she also threatened him that she will commit suicide and
would falsely implicate the family members and therefore a complaint
was made before the police station Civil Lines on 28.02.2020. It is the
case of prosecution that since the father of the petitioner No.2 Lat Amrit
Lal Khare, died during Covid-19, who was working in the SECL and as
per the prvisions, the family members of the petitioners decided that the
compassionate appointment would be provided to the younger brother
of the petitioner No.2 it. Shailesh Khare (petitioner No.1) but the
respondent No.2 is willing that the petitioner No.1 should be given
compassionate appointment and she lodged a complaint against the
petitioner No.1 before the police station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur.
Thereafter, brother of respondent No.2 has also made a complaint
before the SECL Office Gevra, District Korba. The charge sheet was
filed before the concerned trial court of the offence under Sections
294,506,323,354 and 354A IPC against the petitioner No.1 and after
filing of the charge sheet, the trial court has registered criminal case No.
2352 of 2021 and framed the aforesaid charges. Thereafter after
appreciation of the statement of witnesses and the arguments of the
parties, the trial court has passed the judgment dated 20.02.2025 and
acquitted the petitioner No.1 of the charges levelled against him.
4. The respondent No.2 filed various cases against the petitioner
No.2 and his family members under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court Bilaspur
which was registered as CS No. 55/2024 and summons were issued to
the petitioner No.2 to appear before the Family Court on 22.02.2025. A
Civil Suit is also pending against the petitioners before the Civil Court,
Pali district Korba and Civil Court Bilaspur.
5. The petitioner No.1 made a complaint before the Superintendent
of Police, Bilaspur on 24.01.2024 wherein he has made a complaint that
the respondent No.2 is threatening him and his family members to
falsely implicate them if the compassionate appointment is not given to
petitioner No.2. The respondent No.2, after coming to know that the
petitioner No.1 had been acquitted of the charges before the trial court,
had made a complaint before the Mahila Thana, Bilaspur dated
25.02.2025 wherein she has alleged that her in-laws are subjecting her
to harassment for demand of dowry and as per the complaint, the police
has registered FIR No. 20 of 2025 for the offence under Sections
85,296,115(2), 3(5) of the BNS Act, 2023.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that being aggrieved
from the frivolous and baseless complaint being lodged by the
respondent No.2, the petitioners have preferred this petition for
quashing/setting aside the FIR No. 20/2025 registered at PS Mahila
Thana, Bilaspur for the offences under Sections 85,296,115(2), 3(5) of
the BNS Act, 2023.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR
No. 20/2025 at Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, district Bilaspur are bad, illegal
and untenable in the eyes of law and therefore they are liable to be
quashed/set aside. It is further submitted that the respondent
No.2/complainant has made baseless and vague allegations against the
petitioners only to harass them and it is based on concocted cooked up
stories.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that an act to
constitute offence, the allegation should demonstrate the intention and
act of the present petitioners towards the respondent No. 2, as the
petitioners have never done any such act which falls under definition of
Section 85 of the BNS and even if entire case of the prosecution would
be taken in its own face value than also the ingredients of Section 85 of
the BNS would not made out against the petitioners. He further states
that no specific act of the petitioners have been attributed in the FIR and
the petitioners have been implicated in crime in question only on the
basis of vague, general and omnibus type statement of the
complainant/wife with intent to harass the petitioners, therefore, allowing
the continuation of criminal case against them would amount to abuse
of process of law and thus, the impugned FIR, No.20/2025 deserves to
be quashed. He has placed his reliance in the judgment of the Apex
Court in the matter of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others Vs. State
of Telangana and Another 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682, which reads
as under:
"28. 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 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 498-A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing
personal vendetta against the husband and his family
by a wife. Making vague and generalized 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.
9. He would further rely upon the judgments of the Apex Court in
the matter of State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604,
wherein it has been held as under:
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
extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the
following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive
list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-
facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information
Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
F.l.R. 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 F.I.R. 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.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with malafide 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."
10. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State
of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 10 SCC 741, it has been held
that casual reference to the family members of the husband in FIR as
co-accused particularly when there is no specific allegation and
complaint did not disclose their active involvement. It was held that
cognizance of matter against them for offence under Sections 498-A.
323,504,506 and 304-B of the IPC would not be justified as cognizance
would result in abuse of judicial process.
11. He has further relied upon the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2019) SCC OnLine SC 620, wherein it
has been held by the Apex Court relying upon the principle of law laid
down in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others,1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 that criminal proceedings can be allowed to proceed only
when a prima facie ofence 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 Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (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 (supra).
12. He has also relied upon the judgments of this Court in
Satyanarayan Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station
House Officer and Another (Cr.M.P. No. 2496/2023, 2024 SC OnLine
Chh 13906); Manoj Jaiswal and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh,
Through Officer Incharge Police Station Sarangarh and Another
Cr.M.P. No. 2785 of 2024,2024 SCC OnLine Chh 13540); Suraj
Prakash Sahu and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Through
Station House Officer and Others (Cr.M.P. No. 2531 of 2023, 2024
SCC OnLine Chh 13314).
13. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that
considering the material available on record, it cannot be held that no
prima facie case against the petitioners is made out. He would further
submit that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS is
extremely limited as FIR cannot be quashed particularly when there is
sufficient material available on record to put the accused persons to
trial. He would rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of
Taramani Parakh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2015) 11
SCC 260, to buttress his submission that allegation of cruelty is
question of fact to be established during trial, as such, the petition
deserves to be dismissed.
14. Learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2/complainant,
would submit that there are serious allegations against the petitioners
for treating respondent No. 2 with cruelty. He would further submit that
the respondent No.2 is residing separately with her husband ie.
petitioner No.2 because she was subjected to cruelty for demand of
dowry by her in laws and they are subjecting her to harassment. He
further submits that all submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners
relate to question of fact, that can be considered during the course of
trial and that cannot be considered at this stage and that too, in
proceeding under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. as all ingredients of the
aforesaid offences are available to put the petitioners to trial, as such, it
is the case where the petition deserves to be dismissed.
15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered
their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the
records with utmost circumspection.
16. In compliance of the Court's order dated 01.04.2025, the matter
has been referred to the Mediation Center for amicable settlement
between petitioner No.2/husband and respondent No. 2/wife, but both
the parties are not ready to compromise the matter and to settle their
dispute. Hence, the mediation has failed.
17. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
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.
18. 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 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 ofences are made out.
19. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620, it has been held by the Supreme
Court relying upon the principle of law laid down in State of Haryana
and others v. Bhajan Lal and others,1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 that
criminal proceedings can be allowed to proceed only when a prima
facie ofence 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 Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (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 (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 ofence under
Section 498-A 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
anyone 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....."
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab &
Another {Cr.A. No. 4773/2024, decided on 26.11.2024} had, relying on
the decision in Geeta Mehrotra (supra), Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others {(2022) 6 SCC 599},
Bhajan Lal (supra), and Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
Another {(2013) 10 SCC 591}, had quashed the FIR and the
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
21. Very recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayan
& Others v. State of Telangana & Another {Cr.A. No. 5199 of 2024,
decided on 10.12.2024}, has observed as under:
A mere reference to the names of family members in
a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute,
without specific allegations indicating their active
involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-
recognized fact, borne out of judicial experience, 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
generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported
by concrete evidence or particularized 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.
In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are
the members of the family of appellant No.1 have
been living in different cities and have not resided in
the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and
respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be
dragged into criminal prosecution and the same
would be an abuse of the process of the law in the
absence of specific allegations made against each of
them.
26. In fact, in the instant case, the first appellant and
his wife i.e. the second respondent herein resided at
Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where he was working in
Southern Railways. They were married in the year
2015 and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and
2017, the second respondent gave birth to two
children. Therefore, it cannot be believed that there
was any harassment for dowry during the said period
or that there was any matrimonial discord. Further,
the second respondent in response to the missing
complaint filed by the first appellant herein on
05.10.2021 addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021 to
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur
Sub Division requesting for closure of the said
complaint as she had stated that she had left the
matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a
quarrel with the appellant No.1 because of one
Govindan with whom the second respondent was
in contact over telephone for a period of ten days.
She had also admitted that she would not repeat
such acts in future. In the above conspectus of facts,
we ind that the allegations of the second respondent
against the appellants herein are too far-fetched and
are not believable.
27. xxx xxx xxx
28. 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 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 husband and
his family by a wife. Making vague and generalized
allegations during matrimonial conlicts, 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.
29. 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 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.
30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao
vs.L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as
follows:
"12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial
disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred
ceremony, the 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 commission of 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 other reasons
which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties
may ponder over their defaults and terminate their
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."
31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of
Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that 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 by
the husband's close relatives 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
complainant are required to be scrutinized with great
care and circumspection.
32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the
impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent
No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle
personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1
and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6
herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within
category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in
Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present
case, erred in not exercising the powers available to
it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to
prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing
the criminal prosecution against the appellants."
In view of the aforesaid, the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the FIR,
the charge-sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending
before the learned trial Court.
22. Having noticed the legal position qua quashing the FIR and
charge sheet, the question would be whether taking the contents of the
FIR and charge-sheet as it is, offence under Sections 85, 296, 115(2)
and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 is made out against the petitioners?
23. It is the case of the prosecution that after marriage of the
complainant with the petitioner No. 2 they are residing separately and
the respondent No. 2 has lodged the FIR alleging therein that she was
subjected to cruelty by her husband and his family members. In the
complaint so made, the complainant has only made omnibus and
general allegations against the petitioners without being full particulars
about date and place that all the petitioners including the husband
treated her with cruelty for demand of dowry. There is no specific
allegation regarding anyone of the petitioners except common and
general allegations against all the petitioners that they have demanded
cash amount.
24. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the
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 petitioners, we are of the
considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Sections 85, 296,
115(2) and 3(5) of BNS Act is made out for prosecuting petitioner No.1-
Shailesh Khare, petitioner No.3 Smt. Ramshila Bai, petitioner No.4 Smt
Savita Bai Mirri, petitioner No.5 Madhav Miri and petitioner No.6 Smt.
Reena Khare for the above-stated ofences 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.
25. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis
and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, the arrest of the
petitioners in pursuance of impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 20/2025
pending before the Police Station, Sarkanda, Bilaspur for the offence
under Sections 85, 296,115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS 2023 is hereby
quashed to the extent of petitioner No.1-Shailesh Khare, petitioner No.3
Smt. Ramshila Bai, petitioner No.4 Smt Savita Bai Mirri, petitioner No.5
Madhav Miri and petitioner No.6 Smt. Reena Khare. The prosecution
against her husband i.e. petitioner No. 2- Keshav Khare, S/o Late Amrit
Lal Khare shall continue.
26. It is made clear that all the observations made in this order are for
the purpose of deciding the petition filed by the petitioners hereinabove
and this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter
and concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending against
petitioner No.2 strictly in accordance with law without being influenced
by any of these observations made hereinabove.
27. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS is allowed to the
extent indicated hereinabove.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
SUGUNA by SUGUNA
DUBEY
DUBEY Date: 2025.05.02
12:08:25 +0530
