1

CGHC010267552026 2026:CGHC:35948-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 1810 of 2026

1 - Satyadev Tiwari S/o Late Bhagwat Prasad Tiwari Aged About 55

Years All Are R/o Village Krishna Vatika Colony, Boirdadar, Police

Station Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh C.G.

2 - Kaushilya Urg Arti Tiwari W/o Satyadev Tiwari Aged About 50 Years

R/o Village Krishna Vatika Colony, Boirdadar, Police Station Chakradhar

Nagar, District Raigarh C.G.

3 - Aakash Tiwari S/o Satyadeve Tiwari Aged About 27 Years R/o

Village Krishna Vatika Colony, Boirdadar, Police Station Chakradhar

Nagar, District Raigarh C.G.

4 - Vikash Tiwari S/o Satadev Tiwari Aged About 21 Years R/o Village

Krishna Vatika Colony, Boirdadar, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar,

District Raigarh C.G.

... Petitioners

versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home, Department

Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G.

2 - Superintendent of Police Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G.

3 - Station House Officer, Police Station Pachpedi, District Bilaspur C.G.

4 - Shivani Tiwari W/o Aakash Tiwari Aged About 21 Years R/o Village

Chisda, Police Station Pachpedi District Bilaspur C.G.

... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners :Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate

For State/Respondents No.1 to

3

:Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer

For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate

2

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

13.08.2026

1.Heard Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the

petitioners. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer,

appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3/State and Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned

counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4.

2.Vide order dated 21.07.2026, this Court had referred the matter to

the Mediation Centre for exploring the possibility of an amicable

settlement between the parties. Pursuant thereto, the matter was

received by the Mediation Centre on 29.07.2026 and mediation and

conciliation proceedings were undertaken between the parties.

However, as per the Mediation Report dated 11.08.2026, the mediation

proceedings have ultimately failed and no settlement could be arrived at

between the parties. It is, however, reflected in the said mediation

proceedings that respondent No.4/wife has received an amount of

Rs.50,000/- during the course of the mediation proceedings.

3.The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the

following prayer:

“It is, therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court

may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned

chargesheet No.334/2025 (Annexure P-2)

filed on 14-12-2025 along with the order sheet

dated 27-12-2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by

the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

3

Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G) along with

subsequent proceeding in Criminal Case

No.36672/2025 (State of CG Vs Satyadev

Tiwari and Others) arising out of the

Crime/FIR No.370/2025 registered before the

Police Station Pachpedi, Bilaspur, District

Bilaspur (C.G) on 03-12-2025 against the

petitioners for the offence punishable under

section 85, 3(5) of BNS, in the interest of

justice.”

4.Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the petitioners are the

father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and brother-in-law, respectively, of

respondent No.4. Petitioner No.3 and respondent No.4 solemnized their

marriage on 22.05.2025 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs,

whereafter respondent No.4 started residing with the petitioners at their

matrimonial home situated at Krishna Vatika Colony, Boirdadar, Police

Station Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh (C.G.). The petitioners were

engaged in a small family business for their livelihood. According to the

petitioners, respondent No.4 resided in the matrimonial home for about

five months and thereafter, on 08.10.2025, left the matrimonial home

and started residing at her parental home at Pachpedi, District Bilaspur.

5.Subsequently, on 28.10.2025, respondent No.4 submitted a

complaint before the Mahila Thana, District Bilaspur, alleging

harassment and cruelty by the petitioners in connection with dowry. It

was alleged that the petitioners had demanded an amount of Rs.8-10

lakhs and a four-wheeler vehicle, namely, a Nexon car, and had also

assaulted and harassed her on account of non-fulfilment of the alleged

4

demands. She further alleged certain disputes relating to food being

prepared in the matrimonial home. On the basis of the complaint,

counselling proceedings were conducted by the Mahila Thana, wherein

the petitioners appeared and expressed their willingness to take

respondent No.4 back to the matrimonial home without any condition;

however, according to the petitioners, respondent No.4 declined the

settlement and insisted upon registration of a criminal case.

6.Thereafter, respondent No.4 submitted a further complaint before

Police Station Pachpedi, District Bilaspur. On the basis thereof, Crime

No.370/2025 came to be registered against the petitioners for the

offences punishable under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed the

charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Bilaspur, on 27.12.2025. The proceedings were registered as Criminal

Case No.36672/2025 (State of C.G. v. Satyendra Tiwari and Others)

and are presently pending before the learned trial Court.

7.Aggrieved by the registration of the aforesaid criminal case and

the continuation of the criminal proceedings arising therefrom, the

petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present petition,

seeking appropriate relief in respect of the said proceedings.

8.Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners submits that the entire criminal prosecution initiated against

the petitioners is an outcome of a matrimonial dispute and that the

allegations levelled by respondent No.4 are inherently vague, omnibus

5

and bereft of any specific particulars. It is submitted that neither the

FIR/complaint nor the charge-sheet discloses any specific date, time,

place or particular overt act attributable to any of the petitioners,

particularly petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4, so as to constitute the ingredients

of the offence punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023. According to learned counsel, the allegations have been

made in a general and sweeping manner against all the family members

with the sole object of subjecting them to rigours of criminal prosecution

and exerting pressure upon petitioners in the matrimonial dispute.

9.Learned counsel further submits that the genesis of the dispute

has been completely suppressed by respondent No.4. It is contended

that, prior to the marriage, the petitioners were unaware of respondent

No.4's frequent practice of making Instagram reels. After the marriage,

petitioner No.3 noticed certain objectionable and obscene comments

being posted by third parties on the reels uploaded by respondent No.4

and, being concerned about the same, merely requested her to exercise

restraint in frequently uploading such videos. According to learned

counsel, respondent No.4 objected to such advice, resulting in

matrimonial discord, and the said dispute was subsequently given the

colour of dowry harassment and cruelty. The relevant material regarding

the comments made on the reels has been placed on record in a sealed

envelope.

10.It is next submitted that the allegation regarding demand of a four-

wheeler vehicle, particularly a Nexon car, is wholly improbable and

6

inherently unbelievable, inasmuch as the petitioners are financially well

settled and already possess several four-wheelers and, therefore, there

was no occasion or necessity for them to demand another vehicle from

respondent No.4. Learned counsel also submits that the allegation

relating to consumption of non-vegetarian food has been unnecessarily

exaggerated and projected as an instance of harassment. Petitioner

No.4 is stated to be a fitness enthusiast and occasionally consumes

boiled eggs for fitness purposes; the same were prepared separately in

his portion of the house and no other family member consumes or

cooks non-vegetarian food. It is submitted that respondent No.4

nevertheless objected to the same and ultimately left the matrimonial

home with her father.

11.Learned counsel further submits that the conduct of the petitioners

throughout demonstrates their bona fides and negatives any allegation

of cruelty or dowry harassment. It is pointed out that during the

counselling proceedings conducted by the Mahila Thana, the petitioners

expressed their willingness to take respondent No.4 back to the

matrimonial home without imposing any condition. Despite such

willingness, respondent No.4 declined to settle the dispute and insisted

upon registration of a criminal case. It is also submitted that petitioner

No.3 has already instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu

Marriage Act before the competent Family Court, Raigarh, thereby

demonstrating his intention to resume matrimonial cohabitation.

According to learned counsel, respondent No.4 had been insisting that

petitioner No.3 should live separately from his parents, which he

7

declined as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are his aged parents and he has

family responsibilities towards them.

12.Lastly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that

the investigation conducted by the police is fundamentally defective,

unfair and perfunctory, and that the investigating agency has failed to

collect any independent, reliable or substantive material connecting the

petitioners with the alleged offence. It is contended that the witnesses

cited in the charge-sheet are essentially hearsay witnesses, whose

statements are vague, omnibus and substantially identical, without

disclosing any specific date, time, place or particular overt act

attributable to any of the petitioners. It is further submitted that there is

no material demonstrating the individual or active involvement of

petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the alleged acts of cruelty, and that they

have been implicated merely because of their relationship with

petitioner No.3-husband. The investigating agency has not conducted

the investigation in a fair and objective manner and has failed to

undertake the necessary verification of the allegations from independent

sources. According to learned counsel, no neutral witness has been

examined and the statements relied upon by the prosecution are

substantially based upon hearsay information. It is also submitted that

the investigating officer has failed to record the statements of petitioner

Nos.1, 2 and 3 and has not properly complied with the applicable

procedural requirements governing investigation. Learned counsel,

therefore, submits that the charge-sheet, insofar as it seeks to implicate

the petitioners, is founded upon an inadequate and one-sided

8

investigation and does not disclose sufficient material warranting

continuation of the criminal proceedings.

13.Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgments in Geeta

Mehrotra and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2012)

10 SCC 741; K. Subba Rao and Others v. State of Telangana, (2018)

14 SCC 452; and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another,

(2014) 8 SCC 273, to contend that in matrimonial disputes, the relatives

of the husband cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution on the basis

of vague, omnibus and general allegations without there being specific

allegations disclosing their individual involvement. It is submitted that

the tendency to implicate the entire family of the husband, particularly

the aged parents and other relatives, merely because of their

relationship, has been repeatedly deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court.

14.Learned counsel also places reliance upon Lalita Kumari v.

Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1, as well

as Sathyavani Ponrani v. Samuel Raj, 2010 (4) CTC 833, to submit

that the investigation in a criminal case must be fair, impartial and

consistent with the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21 of

the Constitution of India. It is argued that the investigating agency has

failed to place on record the relevant material concerning the

preliminary enquiry allegedly conducted by the police and has also

failed to furnish or incorporate the relevant extracts of the General

Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary. Such omissions, according to learned

9

counsel, demonstrate that the investigation was not conducted with the

requisite fairness and due diligence.

15.It is, therefore, submitted that a bare consideration of the FIR, the

statements of the witnesses and the charge-sheet does not disclose

sufficient material constituting the essential ingredients of the alleged

offence or furnishing reasonable ground for proceeding against the

petitioners. Learned counsel submits that permitting the prosecution to

continue in such circumstances would subject the petitioners to an

unnecessary and prolonged criminal trial despite the absence of specific

and legally sustainable allegations against them, thereby causing

serious prejudice and amounting to an abuse of the process of law.

Placing particular reliance upon State of Haryana and Others v.

Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, learned counsel

submits that where the allegations, even if taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the alleged

offence, or where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with

mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance,

this Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction under

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to

prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

16.Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent Nos.1 to 3,

opposing the prayer made by the petitioners, submits that the present

petition is devoid of merit and that the criminal proceedings initiated

against the petitioners cannot be interdicted at this stage. It is submitted

10

that, pursuant to the complaint lodged by respondent No.4, a case was

registered after due enquiry and investigation was thereafter conducted

in accordance with law. Upon completion of investigation, the police,

having found sufficient material disclosing commission of the alleged

offences, filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court, pursuant

to which Criminal Case No.36672/2025, is pending consideration.

Learned State counsel submits that the allegations made by respondent

No.4, coupled with the statements of the witnesses and other material

collected during investigation, cannot be brushed aside merely on the

ground that the petitioners describe the allegations as vague or

motivated. It is further submitted that the disputed questions relating to

the veracity of the allegations, the credibility of the witnesses, the

circumstances in which respondent No.4 left her matrimonial home, the

alleged demands of dowry and the respective roles of the petitioners

are all matters which require appreciation of evidence and cannot

appropriately be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India at the stage of considering quashing of the charge-

sheet. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioners have raised

several factual pleas in their defence, which may be available to them

before the learned trial Court, but such disputed questions cannot

constitute a ground for stalling a duly instituted criminal prosecution. It

is, therefore, submitted that no exceptional circumstance has been

made out warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court

and, consequently, the petition deserves to be dismissed, leaving it

open to the petitioners to raise all their factual and legal objections

11

before the learned trial Court in accordance with law.

17.Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that, with

a view to exploring an amicable resolution of the matrimonial dispute

between the parties, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre

during the pendency of the present proceedings. It is submitted that the

parties participated in the mediation proceedings and efforts were made

to resolve the dispute amicably; however, despite such efforts, the

mediation proceedings ultimately failed and no final settlement could be

arrived at between the parties. He further submits that during the course

of the mediation proceedings, respondent No.4/wife received an amount

of Rs.50,000/- from the petitioners towards the amount offered in the

course of the settlement discussions. It is, however, submitted that

receipt of the aforesaid amount did not result in any complete or final

settlement of the matrimonial dispute and the mediation proceedings

were accordingly declared unsuccessful. Learned counsel, therefore,

submits that respondent No.4 is not agreeable to the quashing of the

criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners and opposes the

prayer made in the present petition.

18.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered

their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the

records with utmost circumspection.

19.In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar

Pradesh and another

1

, the Honb’ble Supreme Court has held that

casual reference to the family member of the husband in FIR as co-

1 (2012) 10 SCC 741

12

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 and

506 of the IPC would not be justified as cognizance would result in

abuse of judicial process.

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

represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and others

2

the

Hon’ble 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.

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

Another

3

, 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 others

4

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

2 (2018) 14 SCC 452

3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620

4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

13

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 (supra) by holding as

under:-

“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.

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,

14

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..…”

22.The Hon’ble 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 @

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.

23.Very recently, the Hon’ble 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:

“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 well-

recognised 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

15

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.

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.

27. xxx xxx xxx

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

16

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 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.

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.

17

30. In the above context, this Court in G.V.

Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693

observed as follows:

“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.”

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.

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the

impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by

18

respondent No.2 was initiated 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.”

Observing the aforesaid, the Hon’ble

Apex Court quashed the FIR, the charge-

sheet and the consequential criminal

proceedings pending before the learned trial

Court.

24.Having considered the material placed on record, this Court finds

that the allegations levelled by respondent No.4 against petitioner

Nos.1, 2 and 4 are general, vague and omnibus in nature. Though

respondent No.4 has alleged demand of Rs.8-10 lakhs, demand of a

four-wheeler vehicle and harassment on account of dowry, the

allegations do not disclose any specific date, time, place or particular

overt act attributable individually to petitioner Nos.1, 2 or 4. The charge-

sheet also does not disclose any material demonstrating their specific or

active participation in any act constituting the offence punishable under

Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The material placed

before this Court further indicates that the matrimonial discord primarily

arose between petitioner No.3 and respondent No.4, inter alia, with

regard to respondent No.4's frequent use of social media and making of

Instagram reels, and the objection raised by petitioner No.3 upon finding

19

objectionable comments being posted by third persons on such reels.

25.This Court also finds significance in the conduct of the parties

immediately preceding the institution of the criminal proceedings.

Respondent No.4 had initially approached the Mahila Thana, Bilaspur,

where counselling proceedings were undertaken. During the course of

counselling, the petitioners expressed their willingness to take

respondent No.4 back to the matrimonial home without imposing any

condition; however, the dispute could not be resolved as respondent

No.4 insisted upon registration of a criminal case. Thereafter, on the

basis of her subsequent complaint, Crime No.370/2025 came to be

registered at Police Station Pachpedi, District Bilaspur, and the

investigation culminated in filing of the charge-sheet. The fact that the

petitioners had expressed their willingness to resume matrimonial

cohabitation is a circumstance which, though by itself may not

determine the criminal liability, is relevant while examining the overall

nature and background of the matrimonial dispute. The record further

shows that petitioner No.3 has instituted proceedings under Section 9 of

the Hindu Marriage Act before the competent Family Court, which also

reflects the continuing matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.3 and

respondent No.4.

26.Another circumstance which cannot be lost sight of is that, during

the pendency of the present proceedings, this Court had made an

endeavour to facilitate an amicable resolution of the matrimonial dispute

by referring the matter to mediation vide order dated 21.07.2026.

20

Pursuant thereto, the matter was received by the Mediation Centre on

29.07.2026 and mediation and conciliation proceedings were

undertaken between the parties. However, as reflected from the

Mediation Report dated 11.08.2026, the mediation proceedings

ultimately failed and no final settlement could be arrived at between the

parties. It is, however, recorded that respondent No.4 received an

amount of Rs.50,000/- during the course of the mediation proceedings.

The receipt of the said amount, by itself, does not amount to a

settlement or extinguishment of the criminal allegations; nevertheless,

the failure of mediation despite the efforts made by the parties is a

relevant circumstance in appreciating the present status of the

matrimonial dispute.

27.It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226

of the Constitution of India and the inherent jurisdiction under Section

528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Court is not

required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of the evidence as would

be undertaken during trial. At the same time, where the allegations

contained in the complaint/FIR and the material collected during

investigation, even if accepted at their face value, fail to disclose the

essential ingredients of the alleged offence, or where the prosecution is

founded upon vague and omnibus allegations against the relatives of

the husband without disclosing their individual involvement, the

continuation of such proceedings may amount to an abuse of the

process of law. In the present case, apart from the broad allegations of

dowry demand and harassment, the prosecution material does not

21

disclose any concrete or specific incident of cruelty attributable to each

of the petitioners. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that

relatives of the husband should not be subjected to criminal prosecution

merely on account of their relationship with the husband in the absence

of specific allegations disclosing their individual role.

28.On an overall consideration of the allegations, the material

collected during investigation, the nature of the matrimonial dispute and

the circumstances in which the criminal proceedings came to be

instituted, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the

prosecution against the petitioners would serve no useful purpose. The

allegations against petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 are bereft of the requisite

particulars and do not disclose their individual involvement in the

alleged acts of cruelty. The investigation has also failed to bring on

record any independent or substantive material which could lend

necessary support to the allegations. The prosecution witnesses are

substantially hearsay in nature and the charge-sheet does not disclose

any specific incident with regard to the alleged harassment, demand or

cruelty attributable to the individual petitioners. In such circumstances,

compelling the petitioners to undergo the entire rigours of a criminal

trial, when the foundational allegations themselves do not make out the

essential ingredients of the offence, would amount to subjecting them to

unnecessary harassment and would constitute an abuse of the process

of law. The case, therefore, warrants interference by this Court to

secure the ends of justice.

22

29.In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the

totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied

that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners

would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The allegations made

against the petitioners, when tested on the touchstone of the material

contained in the FIR and the charge-sheet, do not disclose sufficient

and specific material constituting the ingredients of the offence

punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,

particularly in relation to the individual role of petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4.

The subsequent mediation proceedings, though unsuccessful, also

demonstrate that efforts were made to resolve the underlying

matrimonial dispute.

30.Consequently, this is a fit case for exercise of the inherent

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed

and the criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No.370/2025,

registered at Police Station Pachpedi, District Bilaspur, for the offences

punishable under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023, culminating in Criminal Case No.36672/2025pending before the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, including the charge-

sheet and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby

quashed qua the present petitioners.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Anu