Jari @ Nazir @ Shsddaam Ali v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Sept 2025CRMP/486/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 498A IPC omnibus general allegations quashing FIR charge-sheet framing of charge Bhajan Lal categories 1 3 7 matrimonial dispute dowry harassment relative of husband brother-in-law Kahkashan Kausar Rashmi Chopra Geeta Mehrotra K. Subba Rao Priya Vrat Singh Sunder Babu Pepsi Foods Section 482 CrPC Article 227 Criminal Revision No. 96/2021 Crime No. 23/2019 Mahila Thana Raipur Criminal Case No. 184/2020 CRMP 486/2022 Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC allowed to the extent indicated: order dated 23.10.2021 in Criminal Revision No. 96 of 2021 set aside and Criminal Case No. 184/2020 (JMFC, Raipur) quashed with respect to the petitioner for offences under Sections 498A/34 and 406/34 IPC; no opinion on merits; trial against other accused to continue; no costs. ¶123

Jari @ Nazir @ Shsddaam Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Dowry and Cruelty | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶123

Issue for consideration

Whether, taking the contents of the FIR and charge-sheet as they stand, an offence under Sections 498-A/34 and 406/34 IPC is made out against the petitioner. +1 more

¶87

Court's answer

Only bald, omnibus and general allegations are made against the petitioner (the complainant's brother-in-law), without particulars of date, place or any specific act of harassment or dowry demand; consequently, prima facie no offence under Sections 498-A/34 and 406/34 IPC is made out against him.

¶116

Ratio / Principle

The prosecution of the petitioner for offences under Sections 498-A/34 and 406/34 IPC is covered by Categories 1, 3 and 7 of paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal and is liable to be quashed.

¶118

Key takeaways

For Explanation (b) to Section 498A IPC, the complainant can succeed only if it is proved that there was an unlawful demand by the husband or any of his relatives with respect to money or valuable security; not every type of harassment attracts Section 498A.ratio¶68
The order dated 23.10.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No. 96 of 2021 is set aside and the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 184/2020 pending before JMFC, Raipur is quashed with respect to the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A/34 and 406/34 IPC.ratio¶121

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur (single judge, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal J), CRMP No. 486 of 2022, decided 23.09.2025 — Quashing of proceedings under Sections 498-A/34 and 406/34 IPC against brother-in-law of complainant on omnibus allegations. The petitioner, arraigned in Criminal Case No. 184 of 2020 (JMFC, Raipur) arising out of Crime No. 23/2019, PS Mahila Thana, Raipur, challenged framing of charge; his Criminal Revision No. 96/2021 was dismissed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur on 23.10.2021. Relying on Kahkashan Kausar, Rashmi Chopra, Geeta Mehrotra, K. Subba Rao, Priya Vrat Singh and Sunder Babu, and applying Categories 1, 3 and 7 of paragraph 102 of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that only bald, omnibus and general allegations were levelled against the petitioner, with no specific act, date or place attributed to him, so prima facie no offence under Sections 498-A/34 and 406/34 IPC was made out. The revisional order was set aside and the criminal proceedings were quashed qua the petitioner; the trial against the other accused was to proceed unaffected, with no opinion expressed on merits. No costs.

2025:CGHC:48874

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 486 of 2022

¶6

1 - Jari @ Nazir @ Shsddaam Ali S/o Syed Shabbir Ali Aged About 28 Years R/o Chennai Gindi, Police Station Gingi, Tamilnadu

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- District- Magistrate, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Smt. Nazma Begam W/o Syed Laik Ali Aged About 37 Years R/o Near Raza Masjid, Moudhapara, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Petitiopner : Shri Ali Afzal Mirza, Advocate. For State : Shri K.K. Bahrani, Panel Lawyer.

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

23.09.2025

¶16

1. The present Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.10.2021 passed by the 12^th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Criminal Revision No.96 of 2021 whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶17

2. The petitioner is an accused in Criminal Case No.184 of 2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur for the offence under Section 498-4/34 and 406/34 IPC which was arising out of Crime No.23/2019 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur, on the complaint made by the complainant Nazma Begum. The present petitioner is Brother in Law of the complainant. The marriage of complainant was solemnized with co-accused Syed Laik Ali on

¶18

¶19

15.04.2012 as per their rites and rituals. After sometime of marriage, dispute arose between them which culminated into lodging of FIR. In the FIR, the complainant raised allegation that her husband and her in laws harassed her in demand of dowry and her husband used to beat her. On 12.10.2014 her husband beat her and then she informed her parents and when her parents came there, they threatened them and threw her from her matrimonial house. Despite lodging of police complaint and complaint to the community, they did not convince and after lapse of sometime her husband performed second marriage. Therefore, she is compelled to lodge a report. The FIR was registered against her husband and two others including the present petitioner and after investigation charge sheet was filed before the JMFC, Raipur for the offence under Sections 498-A/34 and 406/34 IPC. The trial court framed charges against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 498-A/34 and 406/34 IPC. The charge was challenged by the petitioner before 12^th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No.96/2021 which was dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2021 and the same is challenged in the present Criminal Revision.

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. He is residing separately from the complainant and her husband and nowhere concerned with the affairs of their family matter. He has been implicated in the offence only on the ground that he is her brother in law and to create pressure upon her husband. There is no specific allegation against him with respect to any harassment or demand of dowry made by him. Even in the police complaint dated 20.06.2019 there is no specific allegation

¶21

¶22

against him, yet the charges have been framed against him and his revision has been dismissed. Therefore, order dated 23.10.2021 may be quashed and consequential proceedings of Criminal Case No.184 of 2020 may be quashed.

¶23

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

¶24

v. State of Madhya Pradesh .

¶25

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent/State, would submit that after due investigation the petitioner has been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and prima-facie material collected during investigation are sufficient to put the petitioner at trial and considering the material available on record, it cannot be held that no prima-facie case against the petitioner for standing trial is made out. She would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Taramani Parakh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others 8 to buttress her submission that allegation of cruelty is question of fact to

¶26

1 (2012) 10 SCC 741

¶27

2 (2010) 7 SCC 667

¶28

3 (2014) 13 SCC 567

¶29

4 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620

¶30

5 (2018) 10 SCC 472

¶31

6 (2022) 6 SCC 599

¶32

7 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083

¶33

8 (2015) 11 SCC 260

¶34

¶35

be established during trial, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶36

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.

¶37

7. 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 482 of CrPC 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.

¶38

8. 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 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: -

¶39

"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,

¶40

9 (1998) 5 SCC 749

¶41

10 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

¶42

¶43

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.

¶44

(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.

¶45

(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.

¶46

(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.

¶47

(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.

¶48

(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.

¶49

(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.

¶50

(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.

¶51

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

¶52

¶53

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."

¶54

9. 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 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 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.

¶55

10. 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, the petitioner has been charged for offences under Sections 498-A/34 and 406/34 of the IPC.

¶56

11. 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:-

¶57

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

¶58

11 (2020) 4 SCC 162

¶59

12 (2020) 13 SCC 435

¶60

13 (2019) 18 SCC 191

¶61

¶62

danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

¶63

(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."

¶64

12. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to

¶65

establish offence under Section 498A of the IPC, the prosecution must establish,

¶66

(i) That, woman must be married:

¶67

(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.

¶68

13. The word 'cruelty' within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC has been explained in Explanation appended to Section 498-A 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.

¶69

14. 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

¶70

14 (2008) 8 SCC 232

¶71

¶72

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:-

¶73

"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.

¶74

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."

¶75

15. 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.

¶76

16. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the 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.

¶77

15 (2009) 14 SCC 244

¶78

¶79

17. 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 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.

¶80

18. 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:-

¶81

"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

¶82

16 (2018) 14 SCC 452

¶83

¶84

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.

¶85

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....."

¶86

19. Having noticed the legal position qua quashing the FIR and charge-

¶87

sheet, the question would be whether taking the contents of the FIR and charge-sheet as it is, offence under Section 498-A/34 and 406/34 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner?

¶88

20. In the matter of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs.

¶89

State of Bihar and Others, 2022(6) SCC 599 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated as under:-

¶90

"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.?

¶91

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 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

¶92

¶93

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.

¶94

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

¶95

“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."

¶96

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

¶97

“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 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 grand- fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.”

¶98

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

¶99

“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

¶100

¶101

cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

¶102

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.

¶103

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.

¶104

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 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.

¶105

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.”

¶106

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

¶107

¶108

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:

¶109

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

¶110

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

¶111

"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.”

¶112

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.

¶113

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".

¶114

¶115

Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants 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."

¶116

21. In the complaint so made, the complainant has only made omnibus and

¶117

general allegations against the petitioner without being full particulars about date and place that the petitioner along with the husband of complainant treated her with cruelty for not bringing sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. There is no specific allegation regarding petitioner except common and general allegations against him that he also harassed her.

¶118

22. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, material available on record, perusing the material placed in the charge sheet no specific allegations have been made and only bald and omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Section 498-A/34 and 406/34 IPC is made out for prosecuting the petitioner for the above-stated offence and the prosecution against him for the offence under Section 498-A/34 and 406/34 IPC covered by Category 1, 3 & 7 of para-102 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) and as such, liable to be quashed.

¶119

23. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated

¶120

¶121

23.10.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No.96 of 2021 is set aside. The proceeding of Criminal Case No.184/2020 pending before JMFC, Raipur, with respect to petitioner for the offence under Section 498A/34 and 406/34 of IPC is hereby quashed.

¶122

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

¶123

25. The petition under Section 482 CrPC is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).

¶124

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶125

inder

Jari @ Nazir @ Shsddaam Ali v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jari @ Nazir @ Shsddaam Ali v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Dewangan Vs M/S Jai Vijay Textiles

Ramsu Kamar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jhitku Manjhwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kartami Rama Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lokesh @ Lokeshwar Prasad Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh