Chattisgarh High Court
Kewal Prasad Sonwani vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 February, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
2025:CGHC:8354-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 210 of 2025
1 - Kewal Prasad Sonwani S/o Shiv Kumar Sonwani Aged About 29 Years
2 - Shiv Kumar Sonwani S/o Late Ranguram Sonwani Aged About 61 Years
3 - Sammat Bai Sonwani W/o Shiv Kumar Sonwani Aged About 51 Years
4 - Kanti @ Sandhya W/o Harichand Sonwani Aged About 30 Years
All R/o Village Kuruwa, P.S. Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
5 - Khelan Sonwani S/o Shiv Kumar Sonwani Aged About 33 Years R/o Village
Kuruwa, P.S. Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Shiv Mandir
Vidhya Nagar, P.S. Tarbahar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
6 - Harichand Sonwani S/o Shiv Kumar Sonwani Aged About 35 Years R/o Village
Kuruwa, P.S. Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Ward No. 07,
Infront Of Sindhu Bhawar Mohabhatta Road, P.S. Bemetara, District Bemetara
Chhattisgarh
7 - Chandrakali Mahilang W/o Sanat Mahilang Aged About 37 Years R/o Village
Kuruwa, P.S. Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Superintendent Of Police, Bemetara, District
Bemetara Chhattisgarh
2 - Station House Officer Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
3 - Smt. Triveni Sonwani W/o Kewal Prasad Sonwani Aged About 31 Years R/o Village
Kuruwa, P.S. Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village
Bagaud, P.S. Chandanu, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh --- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners : Shri Ishwar Jaiswal, and Ms Shreya
Jaiswal, Advocates
For Respondent/State : Shri Hari Om Rai, PL
For Respondent-3 : Shri Ashish Sahu, Advocate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crmp 210 of 2025
2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
18.02.2025
Heard Shri Ishwar Jaiswal, and Ms Shreya Jaiswal, learned
counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri Hari Om Rai, learned Panel
Lawyer appearing for respondents/State, and Shri Ashish Sahu, learned
counsel for respondent-3.
1. In compliance with the Court order dated 20.01.2025, the case has
been sent to the High Court Mediation Centre and the parties do
participated in the mediation proceeding. It transpires from the mediation
report dated 13.02.2025, that the matter could not be settled, hence, it is
decided finally.
2. Petitioners have made the following prayers in the petition:
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.
II. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the
FIR bearing No.43/2024 registered on dated 18.02.2024 at
Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara (CG) filed under
Section 498-A, 34 of the IPC.
Crmp 210 of 2025
III. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash
entire charge sheet bearing No.81/2024 filed on dated
08.04.2024 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class
Bemetara, District Bemetara (CG) (Annexure P-1) under
Section 498-A, 34 of the IPC.
IV. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash
impugned order dated 30.05.2024 (annexure P-20 whereby
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara has
taken cognizance of the impugned chargesheet and
registered the impugned criminal proceeding as Criminal Case
No.1107/2024 against the petitioners.
V. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly grant any other
reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court
deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, in
the interest of justice.
3. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for invoking inherent
powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (for short, 'BNSS 2023'), to quash the FIR No.43 of 2024 in
Criminal Case- 1107 of 2024, registered at the Police Station- Nandghat,
District-Bemetara, for the alleged offence under Section 498A and 34 of
the IPC against the petitioners. Learned Court below vide its order dated
30.05.2024 has granted bail to the petitioners.
Crmp 210 of 2025
4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-1/husband
and respondent-3/wife/Complainant had solemnized marriage
according to their rites and rituals on 05.10.2016. After some time
of their marriage, petitioners started harassing respondent-3 mentally
for bringing less dowry. On the said issue, respondent-3 ultimately,
made a written complaint and the Police registered FIR-43 of 2024 for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A and 34 of the IPC at PS-
Nandghat, District-Bemetara, and the Police started investigation. After
investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class Bemetara, District-Bemetara, Chhattisgarh for the
offence under Sections 498A and 34 of the IPC, and the same is pending
before it in Criminal Case-1107 of 2024. The said FIR, charge-sheet
and criminal proceeding are under challenge in the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that complainant
does not like to enjoy her marital life, and she stayed only for six
months in her matrimonial house. She deliberately registered the said
FIR only to harass the petitioners, who are in-laws of the
complainant, and they never tried to harass or torture the complainant
for demand of dowry. She has raised allegations which are
trivial in nature and the same are insufficient to support the
allegation of harassment and cruelty for demand of dowry. She left her
matrimonial home without any sufficient reason, and when her
husband, petitioner-1 has filed application under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act for seeking decree of divorce, the
Crmp 210 of 2025
complainant has made false complaint against all family members.
Petitioners have been released on bail vide order dated 30.05.2024,
passed by the learned Court below on the basis of false and baseless
allegation levelled against them. As there is no specific allegation
levelled against the petitioners in the complaint, and therefore, the
proceedings of Complaint case-1107 of 2024 for the offence under
Section 498-A and 34 of the IPC pending before the JMFC, Bemetara,
may be quashed.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3
would submit that after considering the entire material produced before
the trial court the complaint case was registered in which serious
allegations against the petitioners for threatening and harassing the
respondent-3 for demand of dowry has been levelled. All the
submissions raised on behalf of petitioners relate to the question of fact
that can be considered during the course of trial and the same cannot be
considered at this stage, that too in a proceeding under Section 528 of
the BNSS 2023, 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.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their
rival submissions made herein above and also went through the record
with utmost circumspection.
Crmp 210 of 2025
8. At the outset, it would be appropriate to consider the scope of
interference in a case where charge-sheet has already been filed by the
Police against accused persons in extraordinary jurisdiction under
Section 528 of BNSS 2023.
9. In the matter of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial
Magistrate and others1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
accused can approach the High Court either under Section 482 of CrPC/
Section 528 of BNSS 2023 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to have the proceeding quashed against them 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 others2 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 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
(1998) 5 SCC 749
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Crmp 210 of 2025
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
Crmp 210 of 2025
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 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
Crmp 210 of 2025
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 Supreme Court in the matters of Google
India Private Limited v. Visaka Industries3, Ahmad Ali Quraishi and
another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 4 and Dr Dhruvaram
Murlidhar Sonar. v. State of Maharashtra and others 5". 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,
"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/charge-sheet, reverting to the facts of the
present case, it is quite vivid that in the impugned charge-sheet, seven
petitioners have been charged for the alleged offences under Sections
498-A/34 of the IPC.
(2020) 4 SCC 162
(2020) 13 SCC 435
(2019) 18 SCC 191
Crmp 210 of 2025
13. 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:-
"498A. 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 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."
14. 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
Crmp 210 of 2025
(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 498A 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 498A of the IPC. Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the
IPC 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 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.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priya Vrat Singh and
others v. Shyam Ji Sahai6 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:-
(2008) 8 SCC 232
Crmp 210 of 2025
"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 Nadu7 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.
18. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Supreme
Court held that casual reference to the family member of the husband in
(2009) 14 SCC 244
Crmp 210 of 2025
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.
19. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana
represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others 8 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
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
(2018) 14 SCC 452
Crmp 210 of 2025
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 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
Crmp 210 of 2025
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 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 Section 498-A/34 of the IPC is made
out against the petitioners or not.
22. In the matter of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs.
State of Bihar and Others9 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
2022(6) SCC 599
Crmp 210 of 2025
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:-
"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
Crmp 210 of 2025
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 amongst the provisions that
are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled
Crmp 210 of 2025
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
Crmp 210 of 2025
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
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
Crmp 210 of 2025
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."
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
Crmp 210 of 2025
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:-
Crmp 210 of 2025
"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
Crmp 210 of 2025
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 by 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 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. In the complaint so made, the complainant/respondent-3 has only
made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners- 2 to 7
without there being any particulars about date and place that they,
including her husband treated her with cruelty for not bringing sufficient
dowry at the time of marriage. There is no specific allegation regarding
Crmp 210 of 2025
petitioners- 2 to 7 except common and general allegations against them
that they also have demanded dowry.
24. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
material available on record, perusing the FIR as well as material placed
in the charge sheet, no specific allegation has been made and only bald
and omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioners-2 to 7,
we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under
Section 498-A/34 IPC is made out for prosecuting and framing of charge
against petitioners- 2 to 7 namely, Shiv Kumar Sonwani, Sammat Bai
Sonwani, Kanti@ Sandhya, Khelan Sonwani, Harichand Sonwani,
and Chandrakali Mahilang, respectively, for the above-stated offence
and the prosecution against them for the offence under Section 498-A
and 34 of the IPC 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 petition is
partly allowed. Criminal Case- 1107 of 2024 pending in the Court of
JMFC Bemetara, CG arising out of FIR-43 of 2024 registered at Police
Station- Nandghat, District-Bemetara for the offence under Sections 498-
A and 34 of the IPC is hereby quashed to the extent of petitioners- 2 to 7
as mentioned above, and they are discharged from the offence.
Crmp 210 of 2025
However, prosecution with respect to petitioner-1 Kewal Prasad
Sonwani, s/o Shiv Kumar Sonwani, shall continue.
26. It is made clear that all the observations made in this order are for
the purpose of deciding the present petition filed by the petitioners herein
above, and this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the
matter and concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending
against Petitioner-1- Kewal Prasad Sonwani, husband of the
complainant, strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by
any of observations made herein above.
27. Petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS 2023 is partly allowed
to the extent as indicated herein above.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
padma
