Amit Mittal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - Bharat Bhushan Mittal S/o. Late Rikhiram, Aged About 72 Years R/o. Vishal Enterprises, Nagpur Road, National Highway No. 06, Bhandara, Maharashtra,

¶18

2 - Saroj Rani Mittal, W/o. Bharat Bhu8shan Mittal, Aged About 67 Years R/o. Vishal Enterprises, Nagpur Road, National Highway No. 06, Bhandara, Maharashtra.

¶19

--- Petitioner(s)

¶20

Versus

¶21

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶22

2 - Superintendent Of Police, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶23

3 - Station House Officer, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶24

4 - Smt. Shail Mittal, W/o. Amit Mittal, R/o Khandelwal Colony, Madhuban Vatika, Durg, P.S. Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶25

--- Respondent(s)

¶26

(Cause title taken from CIS)

¶27

For Petitioner(s)	:Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate with
	Shri Harsh Dave, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/State	:Shri Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 4	:Shri Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate.

¶28

3

¶29

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶30

Order on Board

¶31

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶32

09.07.2025

¶33

Heard Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Harsh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3 as well as Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

¶34

Since both the petitions arising out of same crime number and also involve similar facts and grounds they are being considered and decided by this common order

¶35

The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners, are that on 30.03.2019 a complaint was filed by respondent No.4 Smt. Shail Mittal, who is the wife of petitioner Amit Mittal and daughter-in-law of Bharat Bhushan Mitta and Saroj Rani Mittal, before the Officer In-Charge, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Durg alleging that the marriage between respondent No. 4 and petitioner/husband was solemnized on 02.07.2006. At the time of marriage the parents of the complainant/respondent No. 4 herein gave all the essential articles, golds jewellery. It is alleged that 3 months right after the marriage the petitioner husband had begun treating her cruelly, forcing her to perform acts of unnatural sex and

¶36

4

¶37

incessantly demanding that she ask her family for dowry physically abusing her upon refusal. The complaint further alleged that after the birth of their children the physical and verbal abuse had worsened, extending to involvement of the complainant’s family. Immediately after filing of the initial complaint a government medical practitioner examined the complainant. The medical reports dated 28.01.2019 & 31.03.2019 all opined that no visible signs of inner or outer injury could be made out of the complainant’s intimate parts as claimed in her complaints. The complainant then moved to court (Durg, C.G.) where the learned trial magistrate charged criminal charges against the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 and 377 of IPC. The petitioners in turn filed a revision petition against said charges in the sessions court which subsequently got quashed. This petition has been filed to challenge the illegal arbitrary and malicious action of the respondent authorities in proceedings against the present petitioners as well as to challenge the order against the revision petition filed by the petitioners in the sessions court citing lack of prima facie notion of any criminal action from the side of the petitioners as per Sections 377, 33, 498-A and 34 of IPC. Hence this petition.

¶38

It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner in CrMP No. 83/2024 is husband of respondent No.4 and out of their wedlock, two child were born. It is stated that there was a matrimonial dispute between petitioner/husband and

¶39

5

¶40

respondent No.4 as they are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 02.07.2006 and hence, the present proceedings against the petitioner in CrMP No. 83/2024 who is husband and petitioner No. 1 and 2 in CrMP No.1465/2023 who are in-laws of respondent No. 4 be quashed.

¶41

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has submitted that criminal revision has been filed by petitioners and respondent No.4 being Criminal Revision No 195/2021 and the matter was referred to the Mediation Center and mediation between the parties has failed. In view of above, it would be futile exercise for sending the matter again before the Mediation Center.

¶42

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition.

¶43

In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another¹ , the Supreme Court has held that casual reference to the family member of the husband in FIR as coaccused 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.

¶44

In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and

¶45

1 (2012) 10 SCC 741

¶46

6

¶47

others² 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.

¶48

In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another³ , it has been held by the Supreme Court relying upon the principle of law laid down in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others⁴ 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 Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (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

¶49

3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620

¶50

4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

¶51

2 (2018) 14 SCC 452

¶52

7

¶53

(supra) by holding as under:-

¶54

“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 filed as counter blast to divorce petition proceeding in State of Michigan by Nayan Chopra.

¶55

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.....”

¶56

The Apex Court, in Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab & Another {Cr.A. No. 4773/2024, decided on 26.11.2024} had, relying on the decision in Geeta Mehrotra (supra), Kahkashan Kausar @

¶57

8

¶58

Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others {(2022) 6 SCC 599}, Bhajan Lal (supra), and Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another {(2013) 10 SCC 591}, had quashed the FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶59

Very recently, the Apex Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayan & Others v. State of Telangana & Another {Cr.A. No. 5199 of 2024, decided on 10.12.2024}, has observed as under:

¶60

“ 25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a wellrecognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.

¶61

9

¶62

26. In fact, in the instant case, the first appellant and his wife i.e. the second respondent herein resided at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where he was working in Southern Railways. They were married in the year 2015 and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the second respondent gave birth to two children. Therefore, it cannot be believed that there was any harassment for dowry during the said period or that there was any matrimonial discord. Further, the second respondent in response to the missing complaint filed by the first appellant herein on 05.10.2021 addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting for closure of the said complaint as she had stated that she had left the matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a quarrel with the appellant No.1 because of one Govindan with whom the second respondent was in contact over telephone for a period of ten days. She had also admitted that she would not repeat such acts in future. In the above conspectus of facts, we find that the allegations of the second respondent against the appellants herein are too far-fetched and are not believable.

¶63

27. xxx xxx xxx

¶64

28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to

¶65

10

¶66

misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.

¶67

29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.

¶68

30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows:

¶69

11

¶70

“12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the 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 commission of 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 other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their 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.”

¶71

31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that 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 by the husband’s close relatives 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 complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection .

¶72

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated

¶73

12

¶74

with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants. ”

¶75

Observing the aforesaid, the Apex Court quashed the FIR, the charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court.

¶76

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 the petitioners treated her with cruelty for not bringing money towards dowry. There is no specific allegation regarding the petitioners (in-laws) except common and general allegations that they have demanded cash amount.

¶77

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/in-laws, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under Section 498-A, 323 and 34 of the IPC is made out for prosecuting (petitioner No. 1 – Bharat Bhushan Mittal and petitioner No.2

¶78

13

¶79

-Smt.Saroj Rani Mittal in Cr.M.P No. 1465/2023) for the abovestated offences.

¶80

As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, Criminal Revision No. 195/2021 pending in the Court of Learned Sessions Court, Durg (Chhattisgarh) arising out of Crime No. 22/2019 registered at Police Station- Mahina Thana Durg District Durg for offence under Sections 498 A, 323 and 34 of the IPC is hereby quashed to the extent of (petitioner No. 1 – Bharat Bhushan Mittal and petitioner No.2 -Smt.Saroj Rani Mittal in Cr.M.P No. 1465/2023) . Prosecution against her husband (petitioner – Amit Mittal in Cr.M.P. No. 83/2024 shall continue. Concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending against petitioner – Amit Mittal strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of these observations made hereinabove.

¶81

The Cr.M.P No. 83/2024 under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed and the Cr.M.P No. 1465/ 2023 is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).

¶82

Sd/- Sd/-

¶83

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

¶84

Shoaib/Amardeep

Amit Mittal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Mittal 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

Ramesh Paikra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anshul Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satpal Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ishwar Shrivas Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Yalamanchili Kamala Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikash Choubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another