[Cites 25, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Aditya Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
2026:CGHC:9813-DB
Digitally signed by V
PADMAVATHI
Date: 2026.03.03
NAFR
17:33:57 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 312 of 2026
1 - Aditya Agrawal S/o Sunil Agrawal Aged About 32 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As
Suneel Agrawal)
2 - Sarda Agrawal W/o Sunil Agrawal Aged About 50 Years
Both the above petitioners are residents of Purani Basti, Ward No. 9, Kanta Banji,
Police Station- Kantibhaji, Distt. Balangir, Odisha.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Superintendent Of Police Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgrh.
3 - The Station House Officer P.S. Mahila Thana, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Kashish Agrawal W/o Aditya Agrawal, daughter of Ashok Kumar Agrawal, Presently
residing at House No. 11, Gajanandpuram Colony, Police Station-City Kotwali,
Raigarh, Tahsil And Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners : Shri Hari Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Priyank Rathi, Government
Advocate
For Respondent-4/wife : Shri Krishna Tandon, Advocate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 312 of 2026
Heard Shri Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also
heard Shri Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent/State, and Shri Krishna Tandon, learned counsel for
respondent-4/wife.
1. Petitioners have filed the present petition for the following reliefs:
"(i) Quash the FIR No.13 of 2025 dated 18.06.2025
registered against the Petitioners at Police Station-Mahila
Thana, Raigarh for offence punishable under Sections 85,
3(5) of BNS, 2023 and the consequent Final Report/Charge
Sheet No.09/2025 dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) filed
against the petitioners for offence punishable under for
offence punishable under Sections 85, 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
(ii) Quash and/or set aside the entire consequential criminal
proceedings particularly the Criminal Case no.840/2025
(Annexure )-2) pending consideration before the Court of
Judicial magistrate Class-1, Raigarh (CG), including all the
subsequent orders and incidental orders.
(iii) Quash and/or set aside the cognizance order dated
04.07.2025 (forms part of Annexure P-2) passed by the Court
of Judicial Magistrate Class-1, Raigarh (CG) in the aforesaid
criminal case.
Crmp 312 of 2026
(iv) Any other orders in favour of the petitioners may be
passed as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. It transpires from the order-sheet dated 30.01.2026 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 19.02.2026 Mediation
centre has submitted its report stating therein that mediation between the
parties failed/not settled.
4. Brief facts of the case are that, the marriage between petitioner-1
and respondent-4/complainant was performed on 13.07.2024 in the
premises of Shyam Mandir, Village-Bhatli, Odisha according to Hindu
rites and customs. At the time of marriage, father of complainant gave
some money and jewellery, according to their capacity. Petitioner-1 was
employed in Delhi at the time of their marriage, and as such, after
marriage, on 22.07.2024, went to Delhi from her in-laws house at
Kantabanji, Odisha. It is alleged that during her stay she was physically
and mentally harassed by her husband in Delhi, after which he left her at
her matrimonial home in Kantabanji, Odisha and returned to Delhi.
Petitioners mortgaged all jewellery of the complainant and when she
confronted them, she was subjected to physical abuse, and additional
Crmp 312 of 2026
demand of Rs.10,00,000/- was made. Finally, on 29.11.2024 petitioner-1
brought the complainant to her parental house and demanded a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- from her parents to fulfill the demand, and when they
were unable to reach the demand, he left her there and went off. It was
also informed to her brother and father that if the demanded amount is
not paid, they would not take back the complainant. As such, since then
complainant is residing at her parental home. On the basis of
complainant's written complaint, FIR- 13 of 2025 was registered on
18.06.2025 at the Police Station - Mahila Thana, Raigarh for the offence
under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even if the
allegations in the impugned FIR and charge-sheet are taken in its face
value, then also ingredients of offence of Section 85 and Section 3(5) of
the BNS, 2023 is not made out against the petitioners. 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 concocted 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. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
Crmp 312 of 2026
to allow the present petition and grant the reliefs sought by the
petitioners.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the learned
counsel appearing for the Private respondent opposes the petition and
submits that the FIR in question was registered on the basis of a written
complaint lodged by the complainant/wife, alleging that she was
subjected to cruelty by the petitioner and his family members. It is further
submitted that, upon perusal of the complaint, the police found a prima
facie case made out against the petitioners and accordingly registered
the FIR. Learned State counsel would further submit that the allegations
levelled in the FIR disclose the commission of cognizable offences, which
require appreciation of evidence and adjudication of disputed questions
of fact. Such issues cannot be examined in proceedings under Section
482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 of the BNSS, as the same fall within the domain
of the trial Court and are to be considered during trial. Hence, it is
contended that these allegations, by themselves, do not 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, with liberty to the petitioners to raise all
permissible defences before the learned trial Court.
7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties
and have perused the documents appended with the petition.
Crmp 312 of 2026
8. At the outset, it would be appropriated to consider the scope of
interference in the FIR, and charge-sheet filed by the police against
accused persons in extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
CrPC/528 of the BNSS.
9. 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.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter 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
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
Crmp 312 of 2026
of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
Crmp 312 of 2026
(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
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.
Crmp 312 of 2026
(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
the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
11. The principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) has
been followed recently by the 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
Crmp 312 of 2026
circumspection and "that too in the rarest of rare cases" as indicated in
paragraph 103 therein of the report.
12. Having noticed the scope of interference by this Court in the petition
relating to quashment of FIR, and charge-sheet reverting to the facts of
the present case, it is quite vivid that in the impugned FIR, and charge-
sheet the petitioners have been charged for offence under Section 85
and Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
13. Section 85 and 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
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."
14. 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
Crmp 312 of 2026
(iii) Such cruelty or harassment must have been
shown either by husband of the woman or by
relative of her husband.
15. The word 'cruelty' within the meaning of Section 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.
16. 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:-
Crmp 312 of 2026
"8. Further it is pointed out that the allegation of alleged
demand for dowry was made for the first time in December,
1994. In the complaint filed, the allegation is that the dowry
torture was made some times in 1992. It has not been
explained as to why for more than two years no action was
taken.
9. Further, it appears that in the complaint petition apart from
the husband, the mother of the husband, the subsequently
married wife, husband's mother's sister, husband's brother in
law and Sunita's father were impleaded as party. No role has
been specifically ascribed to anybody except the husband and
that too of a dowry demand in February 1993 when the
complaint was filed on 6.12.1994 i.e. nearly after 22 months. It
is to be noted that in spite of service of notice, none has
appeared on behalf of Respondent No.1."
17. Similarly, in the matter of Sunder Babu and others v. State of
Tamil 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.
Crmp 312 of 2026
18. 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
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.
19. 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 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.
20. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra Vs State of UP and another,
(2019) 15 SCC 357 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
Crmp 312 of 2026
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 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
Crmp 312 of 2026
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....."
21. 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 and charge-sheet at their face value,
any prima facie offence under the offences as alleged by the
complainant/wife are made out against the petitioners, or not.
22. It is case of the prosecution that the marriage of complainant was
solemnized with petitioner-1 on 13.07.2024 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.13 of 2025 was registered at Police Station-Mahila
Thana, Raigarh, CG.
Crmp 312 of 2026
23. However, a careful examination of the FIR reveals that the
allegations made by the complainant are general, omnibus and lacking in
specific particulars regarding dates, instances, or overt acts attributable
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 and Section 3(5)of the BNS, 2023.
24. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
the material placed on record, particularly the nature of allegations in the
FIR, and the charge-sheet, which are bald, omnibus and inherently
inconsistent, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prima facie
offence under Section 85 and Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 are made
out against the petitioners. 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 case (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.
Crmp 312 of 2026
25. As a natural consequence of the above analysis, FIR No.13 of 2025
dated 18.06.2025 registered at Police Station-Mahila Thana, Raigarh, CG
for the offence under Sections 85 read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, and the consequent final Report/Charge-sheet-09 of
2025 dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure P1) filed against the petitioners; entire
consequential criminal proceedings particularly the Criminal Case-840 of
2025 (Annexure P2) pending consideration before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Raigarh(CG) and cognizance order dated
04.07.2025 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Class-1, Raigarh
CG in the criminal case and the consequential proceedings against the
petitioners are hereby quashed. The petition is accordingly allowed.
26. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
Sd/- Sd Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
padma
