Naveen Pathak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

3 - Smt. Megha Pathak W/o Navin Pathak Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Puchheli, Police Station Pathriya, District Mungeli (C.G.) Present R/o Near Police Station Village Piparchhedi, Police Station Piparchhedi, District Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.K.K.Khatri, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate No.1 and 2/State For Respondent : Mr.Shivendu Pandya, Advocate No.3

¶19

2

¶20

Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶23

02/02/2026

¶24

1. Heard Mr.K.K.Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 & 2/State and Mr.Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶25

2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:-

¶26

“1. यह कि� था�ना� पी�पी�छे�डी� जि�ला�-गरि�य�बं�द मे� द�� ्ቚथामे सू�चना� �मे� � - 0001/2025 �� दिदना� � -15/01/2025 अपी��ध ध��-85,3 (5) बं�.एना.एसू 1. नावी�ना पी�ठ�, 2. ना�द�$ मे�� पी�ठ�, 3. ቦኍ�मेकि& अकिना&�, 4. ��मे उ्ቛ� ह�मे�& पी�ठ� मे� ्ቚस्&$& ्ቚथामे सू�चना� रि�पी�्቏� पी्ቔ �्ቌ कि�य� ��ना� �- दय� ह�।

¶27

न्य�य�लाय ቦኍ�मे�ना न्य�यिय� मेजि�स्቏ኔ�्቏ ्ቚथामे ቦኍ�णी� गरि�य�बं�द छे०गо �� द�ቄኌ5डी� ्ቚ��णी �मे� � -259/2025, सू�.आई.एसू-216/2025 शा�सूना किवीरु्ቍ नावी�ना पी�ठ�, 2. ना�द�$ मे�� पी�ठ�, 3. ቦኍ�मेकि& अकिना&�, 4. ��मे उ्ቛ� ह�मे�& पी�ठ� मे� द�� अपी��ध �मे� � -0001 / 2025 अपी��ध ध��85,3(5) बं�.एना.एसू मे; पी�रि�& आद�शा दिदना� � -04/03/2025 अभि=य$क्&गणी� पी� &य आ��पी �� ६ ��ना� �- दय� ह�।

¶28

यह कि� अन्य अना$&�ष �� मे�नाना�य सू्ቌमे न्य�य�लाय उचिच& सूमेझे� दिदय� ��ए।”

¶29

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the care are that the complainant reported to the Piparchhedi police station that she is

¶30

3

¶31

married to petitioner No. 1 on 5.1.2017, and they have twin children who unfortunately passed away due to premature birth. After some time, she returned to her parental home for health reasons and then went back to her husband's house. Her husband was often away, claiming to be busy with worship and coaching classes. When she shared this with other accused / petitioners, they told her it's none of her business and she should focus on household chores. They also mentally and physically harassed her, saying she is lazy and can not work due to her weight. Her husband did not have physical relations with her and would taunt her about the dowry, saying they were given cheap utensils instead of a motorcycle. He would beat her, and his mother would pull her hair, with her father-in-law and brother-inlaw supporting them.

¶32

4. The petitioners would not let her talk to her family or visit them, and would demand money for travel. Her husband would live in Bilaspur, have affairs with other women, and threaten her not to tell anyone. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioners, and charges were framed under IPC Section 498A and 34 of the IPC.

¶33

5. Mr.K.K.Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court took cognizance of the offence based on a complaint lacking prima facie evidence. The police did not conduct a preliminary investigation, violating guidelines set by the Supreme Court. The FIR is a revenge tactic, with no specific charges

¶34

4

¶35

against the petitioners, and is an abuse of process. The Supreme Court has emphasized the need to prevent misuse of Section 498A IPC. The petitioners are respectable citizens, and the allegations are baseless, with no evidence supporting the claims. He further submits that specific allegations are required to attract Section 498A IPC, and the FIR lacks such specifics. The allegations levelled in the impugned FIR do not prima facie constitute any offence against the petitioners. Therefore, as per the principle laid down in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors ., {1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335} which is recently followed in the case of Varala Bharath Kumar v. State of Telangana , {(2017) 9 SCC 413}, the impugned FIR and charg-sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶36

6. On the other hand, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr.Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submit that the FIR prima facie discloses the prima facie offence and mediation between the parties has been failed.

¶37

7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

¶38

8. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 20.06.2025, mediation between the parties have conducted on 07.07.2025 before the mediation center of this Court and same has failed and respondent No.2 has taken a sum of Rs.50,000/-.

¶39

5

¶40

9. From the aforesaid report, it is amply clear that the mediation proceedings has failed, as such, we proceed to hear the matter on merits.

¶41

10. From perusal of the documents appended with the petition, it transpires that an FIR bearing Crime No. 01/2025 was lodged by the respondent No. 3 on 15.01.2025 against the petitioners and his entire family i.e. mother, father, and brother. On going through the contents of the FIR and charge-sheet, it is evident that though number of allegations have been levelled against the petitioners but there is no mention as to on which date and at which place or time, the respondent No. 3 was treated with cruelty or demand of dowry was made. Only an omnibus allegation has been made that she was treated with cruelty and demand of dowry was made to her.

¶42

11. 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, 506 and 304-B of the IPC would not be justified as cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process.

¶43

12. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana

¶44

1 (2012) 10 SCC 741

¶45

6

¶46

represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and 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.

¶47

13. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and

¶48

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

¶49

3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620

¶50

4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

¶51

2 (2018) 14 SCC 452

¶52

7

¶53

being covered by category seven as enumerated in Bhajan Lal (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

14. 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

¶57

8

¶58

decision in Geeta Mehrotra (supra), Kahkashan Kausar @ 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

15. 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 misuse provisions

¶65

10

¶66

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

16. On having perused the FIR and charge-sheet, and the other materials available on record, the allegations levelled against the petitioners are mere bald allegations without there being any reference to any specific instance with date and place, we are of the considered opinion that FIR bearing Crime No. 01/2025 dated 15.01.2025 registered at Police Station, Piparchedi, District Gariyaband and all the consequential proceedings in pursuance of Criminal Case No. 259/2025, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gariyaband, are hereby quashed.

¶77

17. Resultantly, this petition stands allowed.

¶78

Sd/- Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶79

Bablu

Naveen Pathak v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Pathak 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

Surendra Bechan Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd., Vs Union of India

Vedurvada Santosh Aachari Vs Prakash Kumar Dewangan

Devesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nitesh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Naveen Kumar Patel Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited