Smt. Pushpanjali Dewangan Vs Ved Prakash Dewangan — Dowry and Cruelty | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Smt. Pushpanjali Dewangan Vs Ved Prakash Dewangan — Dowry and Cruelty | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal of the accused/Respondents affirmed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquittal of Respondents No.1 to 3 recorded by the first appellate Court (impugned judgment dated 19.07.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.09/2017) was sustainable in the complainant's appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. +1 more

Court's answer

The complainant's FIR (Ex.P-1) and version appear exaggerated with regard to the allegations of dowry demands, since they were not materially mentioned in the earlier legal notice (Ex.D-1, sent on 30.11.2009 claiming maintenance without any dowry-harassment averment) or in her affidavit (Ex.D-3) admitting voluntary departure from the matrimonial home and tendering an apology.

Ratio / Principle

Ex.P-1 contained no averment as to the date on which the Complainant was ousted from the matrimonial house for demand of a motorcycle and cash of Rs.2 lacs; during counselling (Ex.D-4) the husband stated willingness to reside with his wife, and the parents-in-law resided separately at Bhilai while the Complainant lived with her husband at Raipur.

Key takeaways

The allegations with regard to demand of dowry were omnibus.ratio¶31
The FIR was lodged very belatedly on 12.10.2010, the Complainant having reached her father's house in July 2008 after leaving the matrimonial house.ratio¶33
The appellate Court rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations against the accused/Respondents; accordingly, the impugned judgment of acquittal is affirmed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acquittal appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. by the complainant wife against the judgment dated 19.07.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.09/2017 (1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur) acquitting her husband and parents-in-law of offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Counsel for the appellant did not press the appeal on merits owing to a compromise between the spouses and a pending mutual-divorce petition under Section 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act; the State objected that there is no provision for withdrawal of an acquittal appeal. On merits the Court held: (i) the earlier maintenance notice (Ex.D-1) and the complainant's affidavit (Ex.D-3, admitting voluntary departure and tendering an apology) contained no material dowry-harassment averments, so the FIR and her version appeared exaggerated; (ii) Ex.P-1 gave no date of the alleged ouster for demand of a motorcycle and Rs.2 lacs; (iii) the parents-in-law resided separately at Bhilai while the complainant lived with her husband at Raipur, and in counselling (Ex.D-4) the husband expressed willingness to cohabit; (iv) the dowry-demand allegations were omnibus and the FIR (12.10.2010) was belated, the complainant having left the matrimonial home in July 2008. The appellate Court had rightly held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges; the acquittal was affirmed and the appeal dismissed (Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J., 08.09.2025).

1

2025:CGHC:45540

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

ACQA No.159 of 2020

Smt. Pushpanjali Dewangan W/o Shri Ved Prakash Dewangan Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No.10, Kumharpara, Patal, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh.(Complainant) ... Appellant

versus

1 - Ved Prakash Dewangan S/o Prahlad Dewangan Aged About 25 Years R/o Bramhanpara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - Prahlad Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Pawan Kumar Dewangan Aged About 50 Years R/o Road No. 4, House No. 19/ D, Sector - 4, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

3 - Smt. Kamla Devi Dewangan W/o Prahlad Kumar Dewangan Aged About 48 Years R/o Road No. 4, House No. 19/ D, Sector - 4, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA

Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.09.09 10:33:16 +0530

4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents

2

For Appellant : Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent/State: Ms. Anuradha Jain, PL.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board

08.09.2025

This Appeal has been filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C arising out of the judgment dated 19.07.2017 passed by the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of 2^nd Additional Judge, Raipur, District Raipur in Criminal Appeal No.09/2017 arising out of the judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2016 passed by the JMFC, Raipur in Criminal Case No.906/2010 whereby, the trial Court has convicted accused/Respondents No.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC as also under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with usual default stipulation

on each count. By the impugned judgment, the accused/Respondents were acquitted of the aforesaid charge.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that marriage of Complainant/Smt Pushpanjali Dewangan (PW-1) was solemnized with accused/Respondent No.1-Ved Prakash Dewangan on 27.04.2008 as per social rituals. Respondents No. 2 & 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the Complainant. It has been

3

alleged that after about 2-3 months of marriage, accused/Respondents began harassing the Complainant for bringing a lesser dowry taunting her by saying that she came from a beggar’s family. The Complainant/wife continued to bear such torture to safeguard her married life and on 07.05.2009, she has given birth to a girl child namely Ku. Ritika Dewangan. During the said period, accused/Respondents have demanded a motorcycle and cash of Rs.2 lacs and ousted her from her matrimonial home with a condition that she would come back only if she fulfills their demands. The Complainant/wife has made a written complaint (Ex.P-1) on 25.09.2010 at PS Mahila Thana, Durg and on 07.10.2010, it has been registered after counseling as ‘0’ FIR (Ex.P-2) and numbered FIR (Ex.P-4) was registered at PS Amapara, Azad Chowk, Raipur on 12.10.2010. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Dowry articles which were given at the time of marriage were seized (Ex.P-5). After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed. On appreciation of evidence, trial Court has convicted the accused/Respondents for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against which, they have preferred an Appeal, which was allowed by the impugned judgment. Hence this Appeal.

4

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there is a subsequent development and both the husband and wife have entered into a compromise and also filed an application for grant of mutual divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Raipur and on instructions, he submits that he is not pressing the Appeal on merits and seeks to withdraw the same.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that there is no provision for withdrawal of an Acquittal Appeal. She further submits that the State has not preferred any Appeal, as upon scrutiny of the evidence, it was satisfied that the impugned judgment was passed by assigning cogent and well-reasoned findings.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the record of the Court below and all the relevant documents with utmost circumspection.

Admittedly, marriage of the Complainant (PW-1) was solemnized with accused/Respondent No.1 on 27.04.2008. Before filing of the written complaint at PS Mahila Thana, Raipur (Ex.P-1), which is a typed written complaint, the Complainant has categorically admitted the fact that on 30.11.2009, she has sent a legal notice (Ex.D-1) for claiming maintenance. Learned trial Court

5

has rightly observed that in the said notice, there is no averment with regard to any harassment on account of demand of dowry. Furthermore, an affidavit (Ex.D-3) was executed by the Complainant, wherein she admitted to voluntarily leaving her matrimonial home and acknowledged her mistake. She also tendered an apology in the said affidavit. Therefore, FIR (Ex.P-1) as well as the complainant’s version appear to be exaggerated with regard to the allegations of dowry demands, as the same were not materially mentioned in the earlier notice (Ex.D-1) and affidavit (Ex.D-3).

In Ex.P-1, there are no averments as to on which date, the Complainant has been ousted from her matrimonial house for demand of motorcycle and cash of Rs.2 lacs. The husband/Respondent No.1, during the counselling proceedings (Ex.D-4), categorically stated that he is willing to reside with his wife; however, she herself is not interested in living together. On perusal of the record, it is evident that mother-in-law and father-inlaw of the Complainant are residing separately in a Government quarter at Bhilai as father-in-law is working at Bhilai Steel Plant and the Complainant was residing along with her husband at Raipur.

After going through the entire evidence available on record, it appears that there are omnibus allegations with regard to demand of dowry as father of the Complainant (PW-2) admits that his

6

daughter reached his house in the month of July, 2008 after leaving her matrimonial house and as such, FIR was lodged very belatedly i.e. on 12.10.2010, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellate Court has rightly reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations levelled against the accused/Respondents. Accordingly, the judgment impugned is affirmed.

Resultantly, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE

Priya