Chattisgarh High Court
Dhiraj Gupta vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 May, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:20529
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No.918 of 2022
Order Reserved on 06.02.2025
Order Delivered on 05.05.2025
1 - Dhiraj Gupta S/o Dilip Gupta Aged About 30 Years,
2 - Dilip Gupta S/o Late Shri Ramdas Sao Aged About 65 Years,
3 - Prakash Gupta S/o Rishi Gupta Aged About 35 Years,
4 - Rishi Gupta S/o Late Ramdas Gupta Aged About 55 Years,
5 - Anju Gupta W/o Dilip Gupta Aged About 58 Years,
6 - Suraj Gupta S/o Dilip Gupta Aged About 33 Years,
7 - Smt. Priyanka Gupta W/o Prakash Gupta Aged About 29 Years,
8 - Smt. Simmi Gupta W/o Dilip Gupta Aged About 30 Years,
9 - Smt. Rani Gupta W/o Rishi Gupta Aged About 48 Years,
All Applicants are R/o Baniyatoli Jashpur, Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.).
... Applicants
versus
1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, Police Station Jashpur District
Jashpur (C.G.).
2 - Chhaya Gupta W/o Dhiraj Gupta, D/o Nandkishore Gupta Aged About 30
Years R/o Village - Sarabkombo, Police Station - Bagicha, District : Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh.
Digitally signed
by VASANT
VASANT KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.05.06
11:28:55 +0530
2
... Respondents
For Applicants : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate
For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Harish Khuntia, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
CAV ORDER
1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants under Section
397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being aggrieved with
the order dated 28.06.2021 (Annexure A-1) passed in Sessions Case
No.85/2021 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur
(C.G.) by which, charge under Sections 498-A, 313 of IPC and Section 3
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was framed against the applicants.
2. The brief factual background of the prosecution case is that the marriage
of applicant No.1-Dhiraj Gutpa and answering respondent, i.e.,
respondent No.2- Chhaya Gupta was solemnized on 06.05.2017
according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. After marriage, respondent No.2
went to her matrimonial house for performing matrimonial obligations. It
is alleged that the answering respondent was subjected to cruelty on
account of demand of dowry. In the meantime, the answering respondent
carrying pregnancy and it is alleged that during pregnancy, the applicants
assaulted with the answering respondent, due to which, her pregnancy
was miscarried and ultimately the answering respondent was ousted from
her matrimonial house, due to which, the answering
respondent/respondent No.2 is living in her parental house.
3. On the basis of written complaint made by respondent No.2, offence
under Sections 313, 498-A of IPC have been registered against the
applicants under the Crime No.68/2020 at Police Station, Jashpur and
subsequently, the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has
been added in final report.
4. On the basis of material available on record, the learned trial Court has
framed the charges under Sections 498-A, 313 of IPC and Section 3 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the applicants. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the impugned order
regarding framing of charge under aforesaid Sections against the
applicants is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of the case. The
learned Court below should have considered this fact that in the entire
charge sheet, there is hardly any prima facie evidence for framing
charges against the applicants. He further contended that the learned
Court below ought to have considered that prima facie, no offence
whatsoever is made out against the applicants as even after considering
total charge sheet as is it, no offences are made out. The learned Court
below failed to consider this fact that the complainant wife is Auxiliary
Nurse and Midwife (ANM) at Primary Health Centre, Sarabkombo prior
to her marriage and even after her marriage, she has not resided with the
applicants for more than 3 to 4 days. He further contended that the
learned Court below further failed to consider this fact that in the FIR as
well in the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., omnibus and
general allegations have been made. The learned court below ought to
have considered that due to cruelty given by wife, the applicant No. 1
has filed a petition for divorce on 29.08.2019. Upon service of notice,
the wife appeared before the Family Court on 22.10.2019 and thereafter,
in order to save her skin and to pressurize the applicants, FIR has been
lodged on 16.03.2020. In the light of the aforementioned facts and
grounds, no charges should have been framed under Sections 498-A, 313
of the IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the
applicants. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated
28.06.2021 (Annexure P/1) may be set-aside and the applicants may
kindly be discharged, in the interest of justice.
6. Learned counsel for State-respondent No.1 contended that there is
sufficient material available on record to show that a prima facie case is
made out against the applicant, therefore, the trial Court has rightly
framed charges against the applicants. The impugned order is passed by
the Court below in its judicial capacity and the answering respondent
refrain itself to comment on the merit of the case. He further contended
that the instant criminal revision is not maintainable as no facts and
ground have been urged by the applicants warranting any interference by
this Court. Moreover, the trial proceeding is going on and the applicants
are at liberty to lead evidence in the said trial. The instant revision
deserves to be dismissed being baseless and devoid of merits. It is
submitted that for the foregoing submissions and fact situation the
instant revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the submission made by
learned counsel for the applicants and contended that the learned trial
Court has rightly framed the charges against the applicants and needs no
interference of this Court. Reliance has been placed on several
judgments like; State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018,
Kanti Bhadra Shah and another Vs. State of West Bengal, (2000) 1
SCC 722, Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002 SC 107,
State of Maharashtra Vs. Salman Salim Khan & Anr., AIR 2004 SC
1189 and Bhawna Bai Vs. Ghanshyam & Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 217
(Para- 13).
8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and considered
their submissions made herein above and also went through the records
with utmost circumspection.
9. Considering the facts of the case, it is pertinent to mention here that on
29.08.2019, applicant No. 1 has filed a petition under Section 13(1) of
the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce from his wife-respondent No.2
before the Family Court, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) and in that
proceedings, notice was issued to respondent No.2 and the same was
served upon her on 22.10.2019 and after going through the notice and
contents of the suit, she filed application for dissolution of marriage. On
16.03.2020, she lodged the FIR against the applicants making general
allegation against the present applicants and other two sisters of the
applicant No.1. At the time of framing of charge, an application under
Section 227 of CrPC was moved by the applicants to discharge the
charges framed against them, the application moved on behalf of other
co-accused Kanchan Gupta and Sona Gupta has been allowed on the
ground that they are residing separately in the State of Jharkhand,
whereas the application of the present applicants has rejected.
10. In the present case, applicant No.1-Dhiraj Gupta is husband of
respondent No.2, applicant No.2- Dilip Gupta is father-in-law (sasur),
applicant No.3- Prakash Gupta brother-in-law (jeth), applicant No.4-
Rishi Gupta is father-in-law (chacha-sasur), applicant No.5-Anju Gupta
is mother-in-law (saas), applicant No.6-Suraj Gupta is brother-in-law
(jeth), applicant No.7-Smt. Priyanka Gupta is sister-in-law (jethani),
applicant No.8- Smt. Simmi Gupta is sister-in-law (jethani) & applicant
No.9- Smt. Rani Gupta is mother-in-law (chachi-saas) of the
complainant/respondent No.2- Chhaya Gupta. However, Smt. Kanchan
Gupta and Smt. Sona Gupta are married sisters of the applicant No.1-
Dhiraj Gupta.
11. On perusal of the records, it reveals that after receiving the notice for
dissolution of marriage, complainant/respondent No.2 has made
complaint against all the family members and relatives of the
husband/applicant No.1 including Kanchan Gupta & Sona Gupta
(married sisters of the applicant No.1), in the present case.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.................."
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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, 313 of IPC and Section 3 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are is made out against the petitioners?
18. It is the case of the prosecution that marriage of the
complainant/respondent No.2-Chhaya Gupta with the applicant No.1-
Dhiraj Gupta was solemnized on 06.05.2017 according to Hindu Rites
and Rituals. After marriage, respondent No.2 went to her matrimonial
house for performing matrimonial obligations. It is alleged that the
answering respondent was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of
dowry. On the basis of written complaint made by respondent No.2,
offence under Sections 313, 498-A of IPC have been registered against
the applicants under the Crime No.68/2020 at Police Station, Jashpur and
subsequently, the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has
been added in final report. On the basis of material available on record,
the learned trial Court has framed the charges under Sections 498-A, 313
of IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the
applicants.
19. In the complaint so made, the complainant has only made omnibus and
general allegations against the applicants without being full particulars
about date and place that all the applicants including the husband treated
her with cruelty for demand of dowry. There is no specific allegation
regarding anyone of the applicants except common and general
allegations against all the applicants that they have demanded dowry.
20. 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, I am of the considered opinion that
prima-facie no offence under Sections 498-A, 313 of IPC and Section 3
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is made out for prosecuting
applicants No.3, 4 and 6 to 9 namely Prakash Gupta, Rishi Gupta, Suraj
Gupta, Smt. Priyanka Gupta, Smt. Simmi Gupta, Smt. Rani Gupta
respectively for the above-stated offences 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.
21. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis and also
in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sessions Case No.85/2021
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.)
for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 313 of IPC and Section
3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is hereby quashed to the extent of
applicants No.3, 4 and 6 to 9 namely Prakash Gupta, Rishi Gupta, Suraj
Gupta, Smt. Priyanka Gupta, Smt. Simmi Gupta, Smt. Rani Gupta
respectively. The prosecution against complainant's husband, i.e.,
applicant No. 1- Dhiraj Gupta, father-in-law, i.e., applicant No.2-Dilip
Gupta & mother-in-law, i.e., applicant No.5- Anju Gupta shall continue.
22. It is made clear that all the observations made in this order are for the
purpose of deciding the instant revision filed by the applicants
hereinabove and this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of
the matter and concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending
against applicant No. 1- Dhiraj Gupta, applicant No.2-Dilip Gupta &
applicant No.5- Anju Gupta, strictly in accordance with law without
being influenced by any of these observations made hereinabove.
23. The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Vasant
