Chattisgarh High Court
Vijay Kumar Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 May, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:20785-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1244 of 2025
1 - Vijay Kumar Dewangan S/o Punit Ram Dewangan Aged About 32
Years R/o Mansarovar Colony, Hanauda, Police Chowki-
Padmanabhpur, Pulgaon, Durg, District- Durg, CG
2 - Punit Ram Dewangan S/o Bholaram Dewangan Aged About 55
Years R/o Mansarovar Colony, Hanauda, Police Chowki-
Padmanabhpur, Pulgaon, Durg, District- Durg, CG
3 - Saroj Dewangan W/o Punit Ram Dewangan Aged About 50 Years
R/o Mansarovar Colony, Hanauda, Police Chowki- Padmanabhpur,
Pulgaon, Durg, District- Durg, CG
4 - Ajay Dewangan S/o Punit Ram Dewangan Aged About 35 Years R/o
Mansarovar Colony, Hanauda, Police Chowki- Padmanabhpur, Pulgaon,
Durg, District- Durg, CG
5 - Pooja Dewangan W/o Ajay Dewangan Aged About 28 Years R/o
Mansarovar Colony, Hanauda, Police Chowki- Padmanabhpur, Pulgaon,
Durg, District- Durg, CG
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
Station- Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Cg
2 - Laxmi Dewangan W/o Vijay Kumar Dewangan Aged About 30 Years
2
Presently R/o Ward No.- 9, Kumharpara, Ps And Tehsil- Khairagarh,
District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai, Cg
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
06/05/2025
Heard Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel for the petitioners as
well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, for the
State/Respondent No.1 and Mr. Tarun Dansena, learned counsel for
Respondent No. 2/complainant.
2. The present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed
by the petitioners with the following prayer :-
"1. It is respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble
Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR
bearing FIR and Crime No.116/2024 dted
19.03.2024 registered at PS Khairagarh, District
Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, CG against
the present petitioners for the ofenceunder
Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC along
with the charge sheet filed on 19.03.2024
against the petitioners for offence under Section
498-A/34 of IPC which is a gross abuse of
process of law, illegal and against the provision
of law and thus liable to be quashed in the
interest of justice.
2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to quash the order taking cognizance dated
16.05.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Khairagarh, Civil District
Rajnandgaon CG in the interest of justice.
3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the order framing charges dated
16.07.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Khairagarh, Civil District
Rajnandgaon, CG against the petitioner framing
charges for the offence under Section 498-A/ 34
IPC in the interest of justice.
4. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the entire criminal proceedings against
the petitioners bearing Criminal Case No.
691/2024 pending before the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, Civil District
Rajnandgaon CG in the interest of justice.
5. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem
fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the
petitioners in the interest of justice."
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that FIR was lodged against
the petitioners under Section 498-A/34 IPC. The petitioner No.1 is the
husband of the respondent No.2/complainant and their marriage was
solemnized on 15.06.2020 and out of their wedlock one child was born
on 19.01.2022. The petitioners who are the husband, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively. It has been
averred in the complaint that after marriage the petitioners started
mentally and physically harassing the complainant stated that she is the
only child of her parents but still she has not brought dowry and
demanded 3 lacs from her. On 25.10.2023, petitioner No.1/husband of
the complainant assaulted her and thrown out of the house thereafter on
13.12.2023 written complaint was filed by the complainant and
counseling took place however there was no change in the attitude of
the petitioners which lead her to file the instant FIR. The petitioner
No.1/husband had also filed application under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act for restitution of Conjugal rights in which, during mediation
proceedings, the parties agreed to reside together and the case was
withdrawn vide order dated 7.09.2023. After registration of the case, the
police authorities investigated the case and filed charge sheet against
the petitioners for the offence under Sections 498-A/34 IPC on
15.05.2024 before the concerned court. After filing of the charge sheet
vide order dated 16.05.2024, cognizance was taken and vide order
dated 16.07.2024, charges were framed for the offence under Section
498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and thereafter the case was fixed
for examination of the complainant but till date no witness has been
examined and the case is pending consideration before the court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate,Khariagarh, Civil District Rajnandgaon CG.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent
No.2/complainant and the petitioners are residing separately since
25.08.2023 and FIR has been lodged on 19.03.2024 and written
complaint was filed before the concerned police station on 13.12.2023
with a delay of about 4 months and there is no satisfactory explanation
regarding delay provided by the complainant which shows that the
entire allegation made in the FIR is false and fabricated. The allegations
made against the petitioners are omnibus and general allegations with
regard to demand of dowry and mental cruelty. In the FIR, statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. there is no specific date as to when and how
the ofence was committed specifying the role attributed to each of the
petitioners. It is submitted that the respondent No.2/complainant
refused to live with the petitioner No.1/husband since 22.03.2023 for
which the petitioner No.1 had filed application under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act for resititution of Conjugal Rights and during the
mediation proceedings, the parties agreed to reside together and the
case was withdrawn vide order dated 7.09.2023 but thereafter the
respondent No.2/complainant left the matrimonial house. Therefore,
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. 116/2024 registered at PS
Khariagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuuikhadan-Gandai, the impugned
charge sheet filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagrh, Civil
District Rajnandgaon for the offences under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC,
the impugned order dated 16.05.2024 taking cognizance of the offences
by the trial Court and the entire criminal proceedings that are
undergoing in Criminal Case No.691/2024 before the Court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR
No. FIR No. 116/2024 registered at PS Khariagarh, District Khairagarh-
Chhuuikhadan-Gandai, the impugned charge sheet filed before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagrh, Civil District Rajnandgaon for the
offences under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC, the impugned order dated
16.05.2024 taking cognizance of the offences by the trial Court and the
entire criminal proceedings that are undergoing in Criminal Case
No.691/2024 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Khairagarh 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 He further
submits that the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are absurd
and inherently improbable and therefore no cognizable offence is
madeout against the petitioners and the same is an abuse of process of
law, hence the FIR is liable to be quashed.
6. 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 498-A of the IPC and even if entire case of the prosecution
would be taken in its own face value than also the ingredients of Section
498-A of the IPC 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, charge-sheet as well as
criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Khairagarh (C.G.) as Criminal Case No. 691/2024 deserves to be
quashed. He has placed his reliance in the judgment of the Apex Court
in the matter of Dara Lakshmi Nrayana 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.
7. 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."
8. 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.
9. 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).
10. 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).
11. 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.
12. 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 had left her matrimonial home 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.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered
their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the
records with utmost circumspection.
14. In compliance of the Court's order dated 08.04.2025, the matter
has been referred to the Mediation Center for amicable settlement
between petitioner No.1/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.
15. 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,
and 34 of the IPC would not be justified as cognizance would result in
abuse of judicial process.
16. 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.
17. 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....."
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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 498-A and 34 of
the IPC is made out against the petitioners?
21. It is the case of the prosecution that marriage of the complainant
with the petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 15.06.2020 as per their
customary rites and rituals and and out of their wedlock one child was
born on 19.01.2022. On 19.03.2024, 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.
22. 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 498-A
and 34 of the IPC is made out for prosecuting petitioner No.2-Punit
Ram Dewangan, petitioner No.3-Saroj Dewangan petitioner No.4-
Ajay Dewangan and petitioner No.5 Pooja Dewangan 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.
23. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis
and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Case
No.691/2024 pending before the learned trial court arising out of Crime
No. 116/2024 registered at Police Station, Khairagarh, Distrtict
Khariagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai for the offence under Sections 498-A
and 34 of the IPC is hereby quashed to the extent of petitioner No.2-
Punit Ram Dewangan, petitioner No.3-Saroj Dewangan petitioner
No.4- Ajay Dewangan and petitioner No.5 Pooja Dewangan. The
prosecution against her husband i.e. petitioner No.1- Vijay Kumar
Dewangan S/o Punit Ram Dewangan shall continue.
24. 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
Vijay Kumar Dewangan strictly in accordance with law without being
influenced by any of these observations made hereinabove.
25. 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 DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2025.05.07
18:32:41 +0530
