Partly allowed¶138

Mo. Meraj Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Mar 2025CRMP/479/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing petition allowed in part; 498A/506/34 IPC charge-sheet (40/24, Crime 30/24, PS Mahila Thana Raipur; CC 8492/2024 JMFC Raipur) quashed against husband's relatives on bald and omnibus dowry allegations; Bhajan Lal Categories 1, 3 & 7 applied; prosecution against husband Mo. Meraj Khan continued; mediation failed; key precedents: Bhajan Lal, Kahkashan Kausar, Rashmi Chopra, Geeta Mehrotra, K. Subba Rao, Priya Vrat Singh, Sunder Babu, Pepsi Foods, Google India.

What did the court decide?

Charge-sheet No. 40/24 dated 03.05.2024 in Crime No. 30/24 (PS Mahila Thana, Raipur) and the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 8492/2024 quashed qua petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 (Abdul Shafi, Mo. Shamim, Quresha Begum, Malka Khan); prosecution against petitioner No. 1 Mo. Meraj Khan (husband) to continue; no costs. ¶138

Mo. Meraj Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Dowry and Cruelty | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶138

Issue for consideration

What is the scope of interference available to the High Court in a police charge-sheet in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS? +1 more

¶46

Court's answer

Interference with a charge-sheet in extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is to be assessed within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal (para 102 categories), with the quashing power exercisable sparingly, in the rarest of rare cases, to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

To establish an offence under Section 498A IPC the prosecution must establish: (i) that the woman is married; (ii) that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment; and (iii) that such cruelty or harassment was by the husband or a relative of the husband.

¶77

Key takeaways

Not every type of harassment or cruelty attracts Section 498A IPC; under Explanation (b) the complainant can succeed only if an unlawful demand for property or valuable security by the husband or his relatives is proved.ratio¶81
The complaint against the petitioners contains only omnibus and general allegations of dowry demand, without full particulars of date and place, and there is no allegation specific to any individual petitioner except the common and general allegation that all demanded dowry.ratio¶132
Taking the FIR and charge-sheet at face value, prima facie no offence under Sections 498A and 506/34 IPC is made out against petitioner Nos. 2 (Abdul Shafi), 3 (Mo. Shamim), 4 (Quresha Begum) and 5 (Malka Khan).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur (Division Bench: Ramesh Sinha, CJ and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J; order per Ramesh Sinha, CJ), CRMP No. 479 of 2025, decided 06.03.2025 — Petition under Section 528 BNSS by the husband and his four relatives seeking quashment of charge-sheet No. 40/24 dated 03.05.2024 (Crime No. 30/24, PS Mahila Thana, Raipur) and the cognizance order dated 16.05.2024 in Criminal Case No. 8492/2024 (JMFC, Raipur) under Sections 498A/506/34 IPC, arising from the wife's complaint dated 21.11.2023 alleging dowry-related cruelty. HELD: (i) quashing jurisdiction under Article 226/Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS is governed by the Bhajan Lal parameters and must be exercised sparingly, in the rarest of rare cases; (ii) the FIR contained only bald, omnibus and general allegations of dowry demand without specific instances, dates or places, and no allegation specific to any of the in-law petitioners; (iii) taking the FIR and charge-sheet at face value, no offence under Sections 498A/506/34 IPC was made out against petitioner Nos. 2-5 (father-in-law, brother-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law), the case falling under Categories 1, 3 and 7 of para 102 of Bhajan Lal; charge-sheet and proceedings quashed accordingly. Prosecution against petitioner No. 1 (husband, Mo. Meraj Khan) shall continue; the Court expressed no opinion on the merits. Petition allowed to the above extent, with no costs.

2025:CGHC:11037-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 479 of 2025

¶6

1 - Mo. Meraj Khan S/o Abdul Shafi Aged About 36 Years House No. 23, Vishnoi Gali, Bhatapara, P/s Bhatapara City, District Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Abdul Shafi S/o Lt. Natthu Miyan Aged About 70 Years House No. 23, Vishnoi Gali, Bhatapara, P/s Bhatapara City, District Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Mo. Shamim S/o Abdul Shafi Aged About 46 Years House No. 23, Vishnoi Gali, Bhatapara, P/s Bhatapara City, District Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶9

4 - Quresha Begum W/o Abdul Shafi Aged About 64 Years House No. 23, Vishnoi Gali, Bhatapara, P/s Bhatapara City, District Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶10

5 - Malka Khan W/o Mo. Shamim Aged About 43 Years House No. 23, Vishnoi Gali, Bhatapara, P/s Bhatapara City, District Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Petitioner(s)

¶12

versus

¶13

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho P/s Mahila Thana, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

2 - Rashmin Bano W/o Mo. Meraj Khan Aged About 30 Years Subhash Nagar, Moudhapara, P/s Moudhapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate along with mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate

¶17

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hari Om Rai, P.L for the State Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate for Res. No. 2

¶18

¶19

Division Bench:

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board

¶21

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶22

06.03.2025

¶23

1. Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate along with Mr. Vinay Nagdev learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Hari Om Rai, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State and Ms. Preeti Yadav, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 / complainant.

¶24

2. The present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer :-

¶25

“It is, therefore, prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, C.G. in Criminal Case No. 8492/2024 and the charge-sheet numbered 40/24, dated 03.05.2024 filed in Crime No. 30/24 of Mahila Thana, Raipur, C.G. being tried for the offences under Section 498 A, 506, 34 of the IPC as well as the order passed by the learned trial Court taking cognizance dated 16.05.2024, to secure the ends of justice.”

¶26

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the respondent No. 2/complainant Smt. Rashmin Bano whose marriage have been solemnized on 15/11/2018 and they begot a son. The petitioner No. 2 is father-in-law and petitioner No. 4 is mother-in-law of the complainant/ respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 3 is the brother in law and petitioner No. 5 is the sister in law of the complainant. After some time of marriage, dispute arose between the husband and wife and the complainant lodged a written complaint before Mahila Thana, Raipur on 21.11.2023 stating that she was

¶27

¶28

subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and was mal treated by her in laws and thereafter, the petitioners have filed this Cr.M.P. under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying for quashing the charge sheet no. 40/24 filed in Criminal Case No. 8492/2024 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, in Crime No. 30/24, P.S.- Mahila Thana, Raipur, under Section 498A, 506/34 of IPC.

¶29

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the time of the marriage of petitioner no. 1 and complaint, the complainant was merely a graduate and when she desired to pursue higher education, petitioner No. 1 despite his poor economic conditions, allowed her to pursue LLB and after completion of the same, she started practicing at the court of Bhatapara and thereafter, she insisted to practice at Raipur. After started practicing at Raipur, she started pressurizing the petitioner No. 01 to leave his old age parents and reside with her at Raipur and threatened him to partition the property otherwise, she would lodge false dowry case against the whole family. Then to protect his innocent parents, the petitioner No. 1 resided with her at Raipur. Thereafter, the complainant pressurized him to get the ancestral property partitioned and to reside permanently at Raipur and when the petitioner No. 1 finally denied separating from his old age parents, the complainant lodged the present complaint. He further submitted that the allegation made by the complainant in the FIR is false. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 06.02.2025 the present case is referred to the mediation centre, but the mediation is failed between them.

¶30

5. He would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and

¶31

¶32

another1, Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another2, Swapnil v. State of Madhya Pradesh3, Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another4 (Para-24) , Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another5, Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others6 and Abhishek 7 v. State of Madhya Pradesh .

¶33

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent/State, would submit that after due investigation the petitioners have been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and prima-facie material collected are sufficient to put the petitioners at trial and considering the material available on record, it cannot be held that no prima-facie case against the petitioners for standing trial is made out. He would further submit that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. extremely limited as FIR and charge-sheet cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient evidence available on record to put the accused persons to trial. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Taramani Parakh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others8 to buttress his submission that allegation of cruelty is question of fact to be established during trial, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶34

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, would submit that after due investigation, the jurisdictional police has submitted charge-

¶35

1 (2012) 10 SCC 741

¶36

2 (2010) 7 SCC 667

¶37

3 (2014) 13 SCC 567

¶38

4 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620

¶39

5 (2018) 10 SCC 472

¶40

6 (2022) 6 SCC 599

¶41

7 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083

¶42

8 (2015) 11 SCC 260

¶43

¶44

sheet against the petitioners in which there are serious allegations against the petitioners for threatening the respondent No.2 for demand of dowry and abusing her. She would further submit that all submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners relate to question of fact, that can be considered during the course of trial and that cannot be considered at this stage and that too in proceeding under Section 528 of B.NSS as all ingredients of the aforesaid offences are available to put the petitioners to trial, as such, it is the case where the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶45

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶46

9. At the outset, it would be appropriate to consider the scope of interference in charge-sheet filed by the police against accused in extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS.

¶47

10. In the matter of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others9 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the accused can approach the High Court either under Section 528 of BNSS or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him.

¶48

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others10 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

¶49

9 (1998) 5 SCC 749

¶50

10 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

¶51

¶52

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 B.N.S.S should be exercised, which are as under: -

¶53

"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.

¶54

(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.

¶55

(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.

¶56

(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.

¶57

(4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation

¶58

¶59

is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶60

(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.

¶61

(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which criminal proceeding is a 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.

¶62

(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.

¶63

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."

¶64

12. The principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) has been followed recently by the Supreme Court in the matters of Google India

¶65

Private Limited v. Visaka Industries11 , Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another12 and Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar. v. State of Maharashtra and others13 ". The Supreme Court in Google India Private Limited (supra), explained

¶66

11 (2020) 4 SCC 162

¶67

12 (2020) 13 SCC 435

¶68

13 (2019) 18 SCC 191

¶69

¶70

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.

¶71

13. Having noticed the scope of interference by this Court in the petition relating to quashment of FIR/charge-sheet, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that in the impugned charge-sheet, four petitioners have been charged for offences under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC.

¶72

14. Chapter XXA of the IPC deals with offence of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband. Section 498A of the IPC defines the offence of cruelty as under:-

¶73

"498A. 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.

¶74

Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-

¶75

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

¶76

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

¶77

15. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to establish offence under Section 498A of the IPC, the prosecution must establish,

¶78

¶79

(i) That, woman must be married:

¶80

(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.

¶81

16. The word 'cruelty' within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC has been explained in Explanation appended to Section 498A of the IPC. It consists of two clauses namely clause (a) and clause (b). To attract Section 498A of the IPC, 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 498A of the IPC. Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC 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 Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC, 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.

¶82

17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priya Vrat Singh and others v. Shyam Ji Sahai14 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:-

¶83

"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

¶84

14 (2008) 8 SCC 232

¶85

¶86

torture was made some times in 1992. It has not been explained as to why for more than two years no action was taken.

¶87

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."

¶88

18. Similarly, in the matter of Sunder Babu and others v. State of Tamil Nadu15 delay in filing complaint against accused therein was taken note of by their Lordships of the 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.

¶89

19. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the 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, 506 and 304- B of the IPC would not be justified as cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process.

¶90

20. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others16 their Lordships of the Supreme Court delineated the duty of the

¶91

15 (2009) 14 SCC 244

¶92

16 (2018) 14 SCC 452

¶93

¶94

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.

¶95

21. Recently, 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 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:-

¶96

"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

¶97

¶98

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.

¶99

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....."

¶100

22. Having noticed the legal position qua quashing the FIR and chargesheet, the question would be whether taking the contents of the FIR and charge-sheet as it is, offence under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners?

¶101

23. In the matter of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2022(6) SCC 599 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated as under:-

¶102

"10. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the appellants and respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the appellants in-laws are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed.?

¶103

Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498-A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty

¶104

¶105

committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498-A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.

¶106

This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P. , has observed:-

¶107

“14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498-A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement."

¶108

Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, it was also observed;

¶109

“4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non- bailable

¶110

¶111

offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grandfathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.”

¶112

14.Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, it has also been observed:-

¶113

“32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

¶114

The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

¶115

Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

¶116

The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task

¶117

¶118

in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. 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 of husband's close relations 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 complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

¶119

Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.”

¶120

In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP, it was observed:-

¶121

“21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:

¶122

"12..... “there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, 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 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

¶123

¶124

being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the 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.”

¶125

The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.”

¶126

Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, it was also observed that:-

¶127

"6......The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.”

¶128

The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498-A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

¶129

Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that "all accused harassed herm mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy". Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants

¶130

¶131

herein, i.e., none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by10 each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution."

¶132

24. 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 not bringing sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. There is no specific allegation regarding anyone of the petitioners except common and general allegations against all the petitioners that they have demanded dowry.

¶133

25. 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, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Section 498 A and 506/34 of IPC is made out for prosecuting petitioner Nos. 2 Abdul Shafi, petitioner No. 3 Mo. Shamim, petitioner No. 4. Quresha Begum and petitioner No. 5 Malka Khan for the above-stated offences and the prosecution against them for the aforesaid offence is covered by Category 1, 3 & 7 of para-102 of the judgment rendered by the

¶134

¶135

Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) and as such, liable to be quashed.

¶136

26. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, the charge sheet No. 40/24, dated 03.05.2024 filed in Crime No. 30/24 of Mahila Thana, Raipur, CG against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A, 506/34 of IPC is hereby quashed to the extent of Petitioner No. 2 (Abdul Shafi) , Petitioner No. 3 (Mo. Shamim), Petitioner No. 4 (Quresha Begum), Petitioner No. 5 (Malka Khan). The prosecution against her husband i.e. petitioner No. 1- Mo. Meraj Khan, S/o Abdul Shafi shall continue.

¶137

27. It is made clear that all the observations made in this order are for the purpose of deciding the petition filed by the petitioners hereinabove and this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter and concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending against Mo. Meraj Khan strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of these observations made hereinabove.

¶138

28. The petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).

¶139

Sd/-

¶140

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶141

Sd/-

¶142

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

¶143

sagrika