Allowed

Manish Aditya v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Chhattisgarh HC28 Oct 2025CRMP/1386/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband and his family sought quashing of a dowry/cruelty FIR and charge sheet arising from a matrimonial dispute. The court found the allegations vague, omnibus, and unsubstantiated, with no distinct roles for the female relatives, and quashed the FIR, charge sheet, cognizance order and trial proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.109/2024, charge sheet No.107/2024, cognizance order dated 17.09.2024, and Criminal Case No.1058/2024 quashed against all petitioners.

Manish Aditya Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:52666-DB

NAFR

Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHULJHA JHA Date:2025.10.30 10:39:21 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRMP No. 1386 of 2025

¶7

1 - Manish Aditya S/o Shri Chhotelal Aditya Aged About 26 Years R/o VillKharoud, P.S. Shivrinarayan, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Accused)

¶8

2 - Chhotelal Aditya S/o Shri Shivdayal Aditya Aged About 49 Years R/o VillKharoud, P.S. Shivrinarayan, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶9

3 - Surajmati Aditya W/o Shri Chhotelal Aditya Aged About 44 Years R/o VillKharoud, P.S. Shivrinarayan, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶10

4 - Aakanksha Aditya D/o Shri Chhotelal Aditya Aged About 44 Years R/o VillKharoud, P.S. Shivrinarayan, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶11

5 - Anita Aditya D/o Shri Chhotelal Aditya Aged About 20 Years R/o VillKharoud, P.S. Shivrinarayan, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶12

Petitioner(s)

¶13

Versus

¶14

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Another Through- S.H.O. P.S. Birra, Dist.Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)

¶15

2 - Radhika Aditya W/o Shri Manish Aditya Aged About 23 Years R/o VillBirra, P.S. Birra, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶16

Respondent(s)

¶17

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶18

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
For State	: Mr.	Shailendra Sharma, PL
For respondent No.2	: Mr.	Gaurav Singhal, Advocate

¶19

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board

¶21

Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J

¶22

29/10/2025

¶23

The instant CRMP under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners for the following prayer :-

¶24

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and may kindly be pleased to quash the First Information Report No. 109/2024 registered at P.S. Birra, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) registered on 05.09.2024, for the offence punishable U/s 498-A, 147 of 1.P.C. and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, charge sheet No. 107/2024 dated 08.09.2024 filed for the offence punishable U/s 498-A, 149 of I.P.C. and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the order of taking cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Champa on 17.09.2024 and the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1058/2024 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Champa, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in the interest of justice.”

¶25

Facts as projected in the CRMP are that the complainant (respondent No.2) lodged FIR No.109/2024 on 05.09.2024 at Police Station Birra alleging that after her marriage with petitioner No.1 – Manish Aditya on 07.06.2023, the petitioners demanded a motorcycle, car, ₹2,00,000/- and 20 grams of gold and harassed her for non-fulfilment of such demands. On this basis, offences under Sections 498-A, 147 IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were registered, and a charge sheet was filed on 08.09.2024, whereupon the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, took cognizance on 17.09.2024 in Criminal Case No.1058/2024. The petitioners are husband, father-in-law,

¶26

¶27

mother-in-law (45% disabled), and two unmarried sisters-in-law, all of whom assert false implication. Prior to registration of the FIR, the matter had been amicably settled before the Family Counseling Centre, Janjgir, yet the complaint was lodged thereafter. The Family Court, Janjgir, in proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, directed payment of ₹1,500/- interim maintenance on 09.04.2025. The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail and contend that the complainant herself left the matrimonial home and the dispute is purely matrimonial in nature; therefore, the FIR, charge sheet and subsequent proceedings in Criminal Case No.1058/2024 amount to abuse of process of law.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in a matrimonial dispute. It is contended that the allegations in the FIR are concocted, do not disclose the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 498-A, 149 IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and are unsupported by any cogent material. The petitioners, including the physically disabled mother-in-law and two student sisters-in-law, have been arrayed as accused only because they are members of the family. It is further submitted that the parties had earlier amicably settled their dispute before the Family Counseling Centre, yet the FIR was lodged subsequently with mala fide intent. The investigation has been mechanical and without proper verification, rendering the prosecution an abuse of process. Hence, it is prayed that the FIR No.109/2024, the charge sheet, and the proceedings in Criminal Case No.1058/2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, be quashed to secure the ends of justice.

¶29

¶30

Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and contended that the FIR discloses specific allegations constituting offences under Sections 498-A, 149 IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is submitted that there are clear assertions of harassment and demand of dowry, which require adjudication through trial, and hence, the prayer for quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings is misconceived and untenable at this stage

¶31

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶32

It is noteworthy to mention here that vide order of this Court dated 05.05.2025, the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Centre of this Court. The mediation report dated 05.05.2025 shows that both the parties, namely, Shri Manish Aditya and Smt. Radhika Aditya, appeared before the learned Mediator and consented to participate in the mediation proceedings. However, despite holding single and joint sessions, no amicable settlement could be arrived at, as the wife expressed her willingness to reside with the husband, but the husband declined to do so. Consequently, the mediation proceedings were recorded as “Not Settled.”

¶33

Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the record, it is evident that the present FIR arises out of a purely matrimonial discord between the complainant and petitioner No.1, following their marriage solemnized on 07.06.2023. The allegations made in the FIR are general and omnibus in nature, lacking specific details as to the overt acts attributable to

¶34

¶35

each of the accused persons. The mother-in-law, who is stated to be physically disabled, and the two unmarried sisters-in-law have been implicated only by virtue of their relationship with the husband, without any distinct role being assigned to them. The record further indicates that prior to the registration of the FIR, the parties had participated in counseling before the Family Counseling Centre, Janjgir, where the matter had been amicably settled, but the complaint was lodged thereafter. The cumulative circumstances, therefore, reveal that the dispute is of a personal and matrimonial nature and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to unnecessary harassment and abuse of the process of law.

¶36

It is well settled that criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes, where the allegations are vague and general in nature and do not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences, can be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to prevent miscarriage of justice . In the present case, the FIR and the charge sheet dated 08.09.2024 do not prima facie make out offences under Sections 498-A and 149 IPC or Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The materials collected during investigation fail to substantiate the allegations of cruelty or dowry demand, and continuation of the proceedings in Criminal Case No.1058/2024 would serve no fruitful purpose but rather cause undue hardship to the petitioners.

¶37

Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The FIR bearing Crime No.109/2024 dated 05.09.2024 registered at Police Station Birra, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), the charge sheet No.107/2024 dated 08.09.2024, the order of cognizance dated 17.09.2024 passed by the learned

¶38

¶39

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, and all consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No.1058/2024 pending before the said Court, are hereby quashed against all the petitioners.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶43

Rahul/Amardeep

Manish Aditya v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Aditya v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Anil @ Rasul Sori

Manna Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Salik Ram

Sudesh Kumar Nand, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation, Vs State of Chhattisgarh