[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Amar Singh Rathore vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
Digitally signed by
V PADMAVATHI
Date: 2026.03.03
12:03:15 +0530
2026:CGHC:9812-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 275 of 2026
1 - Amar Singh Rathore S/o Sukhnandan Rathore Aged About 33 Years
2 - Sukhnandan Rathore S/o Radhelal Rathore Aged About 63 Years
3 - Ahilya W/o Sukhnandan Rathore Aged About 61 Years
R/o Ward No. 11, Purani Basti, Sadak Para Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa C.G.
4 - Ajit Rathore S/o Sukhnandan Rathore Aged About 37 Years
5 - Rajani Rathore W/o Ajit Rathore Aged About 33 Years
R/o Village Pathorta, Tahsil Itarsi, District Narmadapuram (M.P.)
6 - Anju Rathore W/o Naveen Rathore Aged About 36 Years
7 - Naveen Rathore S/o Hanuman Prasad Rathore Aged About 42 Years
R/o Gurughasidas Ward Champa, District Janjgir-Champa C.G.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Janjgir,
District Janjgir-Champa C.G.
2 - Smt. Archana Rathore W/o Amar Singh Rathore Aged About 23 Years At Present
R/o Deepka Quarter No. M.Q. 68, Azad Chowk Gali No. 3, Deepka Police Station
Deepka, District Korba C.G. ...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners : Shri Gaurav Singhal, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Nitansh Jaiswal, PL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
25.02.2026
Crmp 275 of 2026
Heard Shri Gaurav Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Also heard Shri Nitansh Jaiswal, PL appearing for the respondent/State.
1. Petitioners have filed the present petition with the following prayer:
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court in
exercise of its inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS may
kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the impugned
FIR baring Crime No.33/2026 dated 09.01.2026 (Annexure P-1)
registered for the offence under Section 04 of Dowry Prohibition
Act and 85 Read with Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita by
the Police of Police Station Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (CG)
registered against the petitioners, in the interest of justice
accordingly."
2. It transpires from the order-sheet dated 28.01.2026 that the matter
being matrimonial in nature, it was sent for mediation. Pursuant to said
order, the petitioner has also deposited Rs.1,00,000/- for the mediation
purpose, and the said amount has been received by the
respondent-2/wife.
3. After conducting mediation sessions, on 17.02.2026 Mediation
centre has submitted its report stating therein that mediation between the
parties failed/not settled.
4. By way of this petition, petitioners are seeking quashment of the
FIR bearing Crime No.33 of 2026 dated 09.01.2026 registered for the
Crmp 275 of 2026
offence under Sections 04 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'DP
Act') and Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS, 2023'), by the Police of Police Station-
Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa, CG.
5. The facts of the case in brief are that, the marriage between
petitioner-1 and respondent No.2/complainant was solemnized on
27.06.2025 according to Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that the
family members of the complainant gave dowry commensurate with their
status. It is also alleged that father of the complainant also gave cash
amont of Rs.7,00,000/- and a Car to the petitioner. Immediately after
marriage, complainant was subjected to continuous physical and mental
cruelty for demand of additional dowry, as well as land from her parents.
She was restrained form visiting her parental home, however, for Navratri
Festival, complainant had gone to her parental home, but she was not
brought back to her matrimonial home. In this regard social meeting was
held on 26.10.2025. On 20.11.2025, petitioner-1 left the complainant,
who was five months' pregnant, at the Family Counselling Centre,
Janjgir. Ultimately, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home
and since then residing at her parental home. On the basis of written
complaint, FIR- 33 of 2026 was registered on 09.01.2026 at the Police
Station Janjgir, for the offence under Sections 04 of the DP Act, and
Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
Crmp 275 of 2026
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the
allegations in the impugned FIR and charge-sheet are accepted in their
entirety, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of alleged
offences. At the most, the case reflects ordinary matrimonial discord
and temperamental incompatibility, which does not amount to cruelty. The
contents of the FIR disclose continued cohabitation, repeated
reconciliations and voluntary resumption of marital life, such admitted
facts completely negate any allegation of continuous, grave or proximate
cruelty required to attract criminal liability. Allegations levelled against the
petitioners are fabricated and concoted story has been narrated by the
complainant. The FIR discloses a case of ordinary matrimonial discord
being given a criminal colour, amounting to abuse of process and causing
grave prejudice to the petitioners. Therefore, the petition may be allowed
and quash the impugned FIR, and all consequential proceedings of the
criminal case.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the petition and
submits that the FIR in question was registered on the basis of a written
complaint made by the complainant/wife alleging the cruelty she was
subjected to, by the petitioner and his family members. FIR was
registered as they found a prima facie case to be made out against the
petitioners. Learned State counsel would further submit that the
allegations levelled in the FIR disclose the commission of cognizable
offence, which require appreciation of evidence and determination of
disputed questions of fact, and the same cannot be adjudicated in
Crmp 275 of 2026
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 of BNSS and the
same to be examined by the trial Court during trial and do not, by
themselves, constitute a ground for quashment of the criminal
proceedings at the threshold. On the aforesaid grounds, learned
counsel for the State prays that the petition may be dismissed, leaving it
open for the petitioners to raise all permissible defences before the trial
Court.
8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties
and have perused the documents appended with the petition.
9. At the outset, it would be appropriated to consider the scope of
interference in FIR/charge-sheet filed by the police against accused
persons in extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC/528
of the BNSS.
10. In the matter of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial
Magistrate and others, 1998) 5 SCC 749 the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that the accused can approach the High Court either under
Section 482 of the CrPC/528 of BNSS or under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to have the proceeding quashed against the
accused when the complaint does not make out any case against them.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the mater of State of Haryana and
others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the
principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under
Crmp 275 of 2026
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 BNSS 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 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
Crmp 275 of 2026
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 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
Crmp 275 of 2026
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 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 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
Crmp 275 of 2026
the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
12. The principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) has been
followed recently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Google
India Private Limited v. Visaka Industries, (2020) 4 SCC 162, Ahmad
Ali Quraishi and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another,
(2020) 13 SCC 435 and Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of
Maharashtra and others, (2019) 18 SCC 191. The Hon'ble 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 and "that
too in the rarest of rare cases" as indicated in paragraph 103 therein of
the report.
13. Having noticed the scope of interference by this Court in the petition
relating to quashment of FIR, reverting to the facts of the present case, it
is quite vivid that in the impugned FIR, the petitioners have been charged
for offence under Section 04 of the DP Act, and Section 85 read with
Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
14. Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 deals with
offence of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband, and it defines the
offence of cruelty as under:-
"85. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or
Crmp 275 of 2026
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.
15. Section 04 of the DP Act defines the offence as under:
"4. Penalty for demanding dowry.-- If any person demands,
directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or
guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any
dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend
to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand
rupees: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special
reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence
of imprisonment for a term of less than six months. "
16. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that in
order to establish offence under Section 85 of the BNS, 2023 (498-A of
the IPC), the prosecution must establish-
(i) That, woman must be married;
(ii) She has been subjected to cruelty or harassment and
(iii) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown
either by husband of the woman or by relative of her
husband.
Crmp 275 of 2026
17. The word 'cruelty' within the meaning of Section 85 of the BNS,
2023 has been explained in Section 86 of the BNS, 2023. It consists of
two clauses namely clause (a) and clause (b). To attract Section 85 of
the BNS, 2023, 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 85 of
the BNS, 2023. Section 86(b) of the BNS, 2023 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 Section 86(b) of the BNS, 2023, 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.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priya Vrat Singh and
others v. Shyam Ji Sahai, (2008) 8 SCC 232 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:-
"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
Crmp 275 of 2026
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."
19. Similarly, in the matter of Sunder Babu and others v. State of
Tamil Nadu, (2009) 14 SCC 244 delay in filing complaint against
accused therein was taken note of by their Lordships of the Hon'ble
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.
20. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra Vs State of UP (2012)
10 SCC 741, Hon'ble Supreme Court 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
Crmp 275 of 2026
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.
21. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana
represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others, 15
(2018) 14 SCC 452 their Lordships of 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 offences are made out.
22. 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 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
Crmp 275 of 2026
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
Crmp 275 of 2026
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....."
23. Having noticed the legal position governing the quashment of FIR
and charge-sheet, the question that arises for consideration is whether,
taking the allegations made in FIR No. 33 of 2026 at its face value, any
prima facie offence under the offences as alleged by the complaiannt/wife
are made out against the petitioners, or not.
24. It is case of the prosecution that the marriage of respondent No.2
was solemnized with petitioner-1 on 27.06.2025 according to Hindu rites
and rituals, and that soon thereafter she was subjected to cruelty,
harassment and demand of more dowry by the petitioners. On the basis
of her written complaint, FIR No.33 of 2026 was registered at Police
Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa.
25. However, a careful examination of the FIR reveals that the
allegations made by respondent No.2 are general, omnibus and lacking
in specific particulars regarding dates, instances, or overt acts attributable
Crmp 275 of 2026
to the petitioners. The later allegations made in the FIR reflect substantial
improvements and embellishments inconsistent with her earlier version.
Except broad and vague assertions that the petitioners ill-treated her and
reiteration of adverse situations between the parties, no specific
allegation is made against the petitioner-husband to constitute cruelty
within the meaning of Section 85 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the
DP Act.
26. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
the material placed on record, particularly the nature of allegations in the
FIR , which are bald, omnibus and inherently inconsistent, this Court is of
the considered opinion that no prima facie offence under Section 85 of
the BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the DP Act is made out against the
petitioner. The allegations do not disclose any specific conduct
amounting to cruelty as defined under Section 85 of the BNS, 2023, nor
do they disclose any unlawful demand of dowry so as to satisfy Section
86(b) of the BNS, 2023. The prosecution appears to be covered by
Category 1, 3 and 7 of paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal (supra), being
based on vague assertions, improvements, and indications of mala fide
arising out of matrimonial discord and disagreement. Accordingly,
continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the
process of law.
27. As a natural consequence of the above analysis,FIR bearing No.
33 of 2026 registered at Police Station-Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa
Crmp 275 of 2026
Chhattisgarh on 09.01.2026 for offence under Section 04 of the DP Act
and Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, and the
consequential proceedings against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
The petition is accordingly allowed.
28. The petitioner is entitled for refund of the amount deposited by him
before the Mediation Center of this Court in compliance of the order
dated 28.01.2026.
29. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
padma
