[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sanjay Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16809
NAFR
Digitally
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
signed by
BABLU
BABLU RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA BHANARKAR
BHANARKAR Date:
2026.04.13
18:24:53
+0530
CRMP No. 1003 of 2021
1 - Sanjay Singh S/o Late Sant Bahadur Singh, Aged About 36 Years
House No. 5/2, Street No. 12, Maitri Kunj, Risali, Bhilai, Tahsil And
District Durg Chhattisgarh
2 - Rajesh Singh, S/o Late Sant Bahadur Singh, Aged About 38 Years
House No. 5/2, Street No. 12, Maitri Kunj, Risali, Bhilai, Tahsil And
District Durg Chhattisgarh
3 - Smt. Preeti Singh W/o Rajesh Singh, Aged About 37 Years House
No. 5/2, Street No. 12, Maitri Kunj, Risali, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S.
Mahila Thana, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh
2 - Smt. Sandhya Singh W/o Sanjay Singh Aged About 29 Years Village
Jora Tarai, Post Dundera, P.S. Utai, Tahsil And District Durg
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.M.P.S.Bhatia, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate
No.1/State
For Respondent : Mr.Sameer Oraon, Advocate
No.2
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
13/04/2026
1. Heard Mr.M.P.S.Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioners as well
as Mr.Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for
respondent No.1/State and Mr.Sameer Oraon, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2.
2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have prayed for the following
relief(s):
"It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed
that the Hon'ble High Court may most kindly be pleased
to allow the petition and may quash the impugned FIR
dated 03.08.2021 (Ann, A-11) registered as Crime No.
64/2021 lodged at P.S. Mahila Thana, Durg District Durg
by the complainant/respondent No. 2 against the
applicants u/S. 498-A/34 of IPC and its consequences,
in the interest of justice."
3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that the
marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was
solemnized on 28.04.2016 at Bhilai as per Hindu rites. Petitioner
Nos. 2 and 3 are the elder brother and sister-in-law of petitioner
No. 1. Soon after marriage, respondent No. 2 behaved cruelly
and left the matrimonial home on 02.06.2016. She briefly returned
between 25.10.2016 and 11.11.2016. Thus, she stayed with
petitioner No. 1 for less than two months in total. On 11.02.2017,
respondent No. 2 visited petitioner No. 1's workplace in Delhi
without intimation, causing mental stress. Due to her conduct,
petitioner No. 1 suffered psychiatric illness and was hospitalized
from 21.05.2017 to 16.06.2017. Since then, the parties have been
living separately. Petitioner No.1 filed a petition for divorce under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in 2018. During counseling
proceedings in 2018, respondent No. 2 admitted the dispute,
expressed unwillingness to live with petitioner No. 1, and a
settlement for mutual divorce with payment of ₹5,00,000 was
arrived at. However, she failed to honor the settlement. In her
written statement, respondent No. 2 did not deny that she had
been living separately since May 2017. Despite this, respondent
No. 2 lodged an FIR dated 03.08.2021 under Section 498-A/34
IPC making false allegations, including that she resided with
petitioner No. 1 till 2020, which is contrary to records and her
earlier statements. The petition filed by petitioner No.1 under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in 2018 was allowed by the
Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Civil Suit
No.355/2018 and decree of divorce was granted in favour of
petitioner No.1 vide judgment and decree dated 17.01.2022 on
the ground of cruelty committed by respondent No.2. As such, the
FIR is false, malicious, and filed with the intent to harass the
applicants amid ongoing matrimonial litigation and continuation of
proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to
abuse of process of law and cause grave injustice.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR
dated 03.08.2021 registered under Section 498-A/34 IPC is wholly
false, malicious and an abuse of the process of law. It is submitted
that the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2
was solemnized on 28.04.2016; however, respondent No. 2 left
the matrimonial home within a short span and, in total, resided
with petitioner No. 1 for less than two months. Since May 2017,
the parties have been living separately. It is further submitted that
due to the conduct of respondent No. 2, petitioner No. 1 suffered
severe mental stress and was hospitalized for psychiatric
treatment. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 initiated divorce
proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the
year 2018. Learned counsel submits that during counseling
proceedings, respondent No. 2 categorically expressed her
unwillingness to reside with petitioner No. 1 and a settlement for
mutual divorce was arrived at, which she subsequently failed to
honor. Even in her written statement filed in 2019, respondent No.
2 did not deny that she had been living separately since May
2017. It is further contended that the competent Family Court,
Durg, after appreciating the evidence on record, has already
granted a decree of divorce in favour of petitioner No. 1 vide
judgment and decree dated 17.01.2022 on the ground of cruelty
committed by respondent No. 2. Learned counsel submits that
despite these admitted and established facts, respondent No. 2
lodged the impugned FIR in the year 2021 containing patently
false allegations, including that she resided with petitioner No. 1
till 2020, which is contrary to the record and her own earlier
statements. It is thus argued that the impugned FIR has been
lodged with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners and to
wreak vengeance in view of the matrimonial dispute and divorce
proceedings. Therefore, it is submitted that the continuation of
criminal proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount
to gross abuse of the process of law and would cause grave
injustice to the petitioners. In view of the above, it is prayed that
this Court may kindly quash the impugned FIR and all
consequential proceedings in the interest of justice.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioners, however, does not dispute the fact that divorce has
taken place between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and
also admitted that no appeal was filed against the decree of
divorce passed by the Family Court.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents appended with petition.
7. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another1, the Supreme Court has held that casual
reference to the family member of the husband in FIR as co-
(2012) 10 SCC 741
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.
8. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana
represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and
others2 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.
9. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another3, 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 others4 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
(2018) 14 SCC 452
2019 SCC OnLine SC 620
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
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 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 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....."
10. The 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.
11. Very recently, the 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:
"25. 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-
recognised 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 generalised and sweeping
accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or
particularised 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 find 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 unleashing
personal vendetta against the husband and his family by
a wife. Making vague and generalised 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.
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."
Observing the aforesaid, the Apex Court quashed the FIR, the
charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending
before the learned trial Court.
12. 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 bringing ten
lakhs rupees and Honda City Car. 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.
13. 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 and the fact
that the petition filed by petitioner No.1 under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act in 2018 was allowed by the Second Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Civil Suit No.355/2018 and
decree of divorce was granted in favour of petitioner No.1 vide
judgment and decree dated 17.01.2022 on the ground of cruelty
committed by respondent No.2 and also considering the fact that
no appeal was filed by respondent No.2 against the said decree,
we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence
under Section 498A/34 of the IPC is made out for prosecuting the
petitioners.
14. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis,
FIR in Crime No.64/2021 registered at Police Station Mahila
Thana, Durg, District Durg for offence under Section 498A/34 of
the IPC against the petitioners is hereby quashed.
15. The petition under Section 482 CrPC is allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Bablu
