1

CGHC010524162025 2026:CGHC:33150-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 3852 of 2025

1.Vikas Pandey S/o Shri Keshav Prasad Pandey Aged About 36

Years A/o 36 Years, R/o Mig 1/135, Sardar Vallabh Bai Patel

Colony, Jamnipali, P.S. Darri, Tahsil Katghora, Distt. Korba,

Chhattisgarh.

2.Annapurna Pandey W/o Shri Keshav Prasad Pandey Aged About

62 Years R/o Mig 1/35, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Colony,

Jamnipali, P.S. Darri, Tahsil Katghora, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh.

3.Keshav Prasad Pandey S/o Lt. Hemlal Pandey Aged About 67

Years R/o Mig 1/135, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Colony, Jamnipali,

P.S. Darri, Tehsil Katghora, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh.

4.Swati Tiwari W/o Shri Manoj Tiwari Aged About 35 Years R/o H.

No. A/29, Rama Velley, Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh.

5.Shri Manoj Tiwari S/o Shri Manmohan Prasad Tiwari Aged About

43 Years R/o H. No. A/29, Rama Velley, Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt.

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

2

1.State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police

Chowki Naila, P.S. Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

2.Nidhi Pandey W/o Vikas Pandey Aged About 30 Years Presently

R/o At Village Sarkhon, Ward No. 01, Chowki Naila, Distt. Janjgir

Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Complainant)

...Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners : Mr. Anit Tiwari, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Government

Advocate.

For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

31 .07.2026

1.Heard Mr. Anit Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also

heard Mr. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate,

appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and Mr. Shivendu Pandya,

learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2.

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

following prayers:

“1. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash

the impugned FIR No. 41 of 2025 dated 15.01.2025

3

registered at Police Station Janjgir (Police Chowki-

Naila), District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) under Section

498-A, 34 of IPC, lodged against the present

petitioners, in the interest of justice.

2. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash

the impugned charge-sheet No. 300 of 2025 dated

19.05.2025 filed on 10.06.2025 before learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa

(C.G.) under Section 498-A, 34 of IPC against the

present petitioners, in the interest of justice.

3. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash

the subsequent criminal proceedings including

impugned order of taking cognizance dated

10.06.2025 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) under Section

498-A, 34 of IPC in Criminal Case No. 1146 of 2025,

in the interest of justice.

4. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash

the impugned charges framed under Section 498-A,

34 of IPC on 04.09.2025 against the petitioners and

order dated 04.09.2025 of framing of above charges

passed by learned CJM, Janjgir, District Janjgir-

Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 1146 of 2025, in

the interest of justice.

5. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to give such

other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the

interest of justice.”

3.Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is purely

matrimonial in nature, this Court, by order dated 22.07.2026, referred

the matter to the Mediation Centre with a direction to petitioner

4

No.1/husband to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which was directed to

be released in favour of respondent No. 2/wife upon her appearance

before the Mediation Centre. In compliance with the said order,

petitioner No. 1/husband deposited the aforesaid amount, which was

thereafter released to respondent No. 2/complainant upon her

appearance. However, as per the report dated 28.07.2026 submitted by

the Mediation Centre, the mediation proceedings could not culminate in

an amicable settlement between the parties. Since the mediation

proceedings failed, and with the consent of learned counsel appearing

for the parties, the petition was heard finally.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present

petition has been preferred seeking quashment of the impugned FIR,

charge-sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings initiated

against the petitioners in connection with Crime No. 41/2025 registered

on 15.01.2025 at Police Station Janjgir (Police Chowki Naila), District

Janjgir-Champa, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and

34 of the IPC. It is submitted that after completion of investigation,

charge-sheet No. 300/2025 dated 19.05.2025 was filed on 10.06.2025

before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, upon which

cognizance was taken on the same day and Criminal Case

No.1146/2025 came to be registered. Thereafter, by order dated

04.09.2025, charges under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC have also

been framed against the petitioners.

5.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the

5

marriage between petitioner No.1, Vikas Pandey, and respondent No.2,

Nidhi Pandey, was solemnized on 26.04.2024 at Janjgir. According to

the prosecution, after a few days of marriage, the petitioners started

harassing respondent No.2 on account of an alleged demand of dowry

of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is further alleged that petitioner No.1 left respondent

No.2 at her parental home on 04.06.2024, whereafter meetings for

reconciliation were convened between the families, including one held

at Hariyali Heritage, Janjgir, but no settlement could be arrived at. It is

also alleged that on 23.07.2024 petitioner No.2 called respondent No.2

and her mother to Sarwamangla Temple, Korba, pursuant to which

respondent No.2 returned to her matrimonial home on 31.07.2024 and

stayed there for about twenty days, during which period she was

allegedly subjected to cruelty and harassment. It is further alleged that

petitioner No.2 attempted to physically assault her, compelling her to

call the emergency service on Dial 112, following which she returned to

her parental house. He further submitted that referring to the materials

collected during investigation, learned counsel submits that the

allegations are inherently improbable and are founded only on vague

and omnibus assertions without attributing any specific overt act to any

of the petitioners. According to him, even if the allegations contained in

the FIR and the charge-sheet are accepted in their entirety, they do not

disclose the essential ingredients constituting an offence under Section

498-A of the IPC.

6.It is further stated by the learned counsel, appearing for the

petitioners that, in fact, after matrimonial disputes arose, the family

6

members of respondent No.2 had visited the petitioners' residence at

Korba and threatened them with false criminal implication.

Apprehending such action, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had independently

submitted written complaints before Police Station Darri as well as the

Superintendent of Police, Korba. However, instead of taking appropriate

action, the police merely issued notices under Section 155 Cr.P.C. This

circumstance, according to learned counsel, clearly demonstrates that

the petitioners had approached the authorities much prior to the lodging

of the impugned FIR and that the present prosecution is nothing but a

retaliatory measure.

7.It is also submitted that proceedings were initiated before the

Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Janjgir, in an attempt to amicably resolve

the matrimonial dispute. However, despite sincere efforts on the part of

the petitioners to restore the matrimonial relationship, the conciliation

proceedings ultimately failed. Learned counsel submits that the very

fact that the petitioners repeatedly participated in reconciliation efforts

belies the allegation that they had been persistently harassing

respondent No.2 for dowry.

8.Learned counsel further argues that respondent No.2 herself used

to frequently stay at her parental home and had repeatedly expressed

that she had married petitioner No.1 against her wishes and only under

pressure from her family members. It is submitted that these

circumstances have been completely ignored by the investigating

agency while mechanically filing the charge-sheet. So far as petitioner

7

Nos.4 and 5 are concerned, it is submitted that petitioner No.4 is the

sister-in-law of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.5 is her husband.

Both of them are permanent residents of Bilaspur, whereas the

matrimonial home of respondent No.2 is situated at Korba. They have

been unnecessarily implicated despite residing separately and having

no role whatsoever in the alleged matrimonial dispute. Learned counsel

submits that there is absolutely no material collected during

investigation to establish their involvement, and their implication is

solely on account of their relationship with petitioner No.1.

9.It is further submitted that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are elderly

persons and subjecting them to the ordeal of a criminal trial on the basis

of such vague and unsupported allegations would cause undue

hardship and prejudice, particularly when no specific role has been

assigned to them. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme

Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar

1

, learned

counsel submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly

cautioned against the tendency of implicating all family members of the

husband in matrimonial disputes by making general and omnibus

allegations. It has been held that in the absence of specific allegations

disclosing the individual role of each accused, continuation of criminal

proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.

10.Reliance has also been placed upon K. Subba Rao and others

v. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of

1(2022) 6 SCC 599

8

Home and Others

2

, reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 to contend that

criminal courts must exercise greater caution while proceeding against

the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes and that distant

relatives cannot be compelled to face criminal prosecution merely on

the basis of bald and generalized allegations unless specific instances

demonstrating their active involvement are disclosed.

11.Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon State of

Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others

3

and submits that the

present case squarely falls within the categories enumerated therein

warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, inasmuch

as the allegations are manifestly attended with mala fides and the

criminal proceedings have been initiated only with an ulterior motive to

harass the petitioners. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of

this Court in Manoj Singh and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and

Another

4

to contend that where the allegations against the relatives of

the husband are general, omnibus and unsupported by any specific

material, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of

the process of the Court and the same deserve to be quashed.

12.On the aforesaid premises, it is submitted that the impugned FIR,

the consequential charge-sheet, the order taking cognizance, the order

framing charge and all further criminal proceedings are nothing but an

abuse of the process of law. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court, in

exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, may be pleased to quash the entire

2(2018) 14 SCC 452

31992 Supp (1) SCC 335

4CRMP No. 2637 of 2019

9

criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

13.Per contra, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for

the State/respondent No.1 opposed the petition and supported the

impugned FIR, charge-sheet and the consequential criminal

proceedings. It is submitted that, upon receipt of the complaint lodged

by respondent No.2, the matter was duly investigated and, during the

course of investigation, the statements of the complainant as well as

other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. On the basis of the material collected during

investigation, the Investigating Officer found sufficient grounds to submit

the charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, upon due consideration of the police

report and the accompanying documents, has rightly taken cognizance

of the offences and thereafter framed charges against the petitioners

after being satisfied that a prima facie case exists against them.

Learned State counsel would submit that the allegations made by the

complainant disclose the commission of cognizable offences and the

defence sought to be raised by the petitioners involves disputed

questions of fact, which cannot be examined while exercising the

inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Surakasha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’). It is thus

submitted that no case for interference is made out and the present

petition deserves to be dismissed.

10

14.Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 also vehemently

opposed the petition and adopted the submissions advanced on behalf

of the State. It is submitted that respondent No.2 was subjected to

continuous physical and mental cruelty soon after the marriage on

account of unlawful demand of dowry and that the allegations made in

the FIR are duly supported by the statements recorded during

investigation. It is contended that merely because the petitioners

dispute the allegations, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed at

the threshold. According to learned counsel, the truthfulness or

otherwise of the allegations can only be tested during the course of trial

on the basis of evidence led by the parties and this Court, while

exercising its inherent jurisdiction, ought not to undertake a meticulous

appreciation of the evidence collected during investigation. It is further

submitted that the FIR and the charge-sheet disclose a prima facie case

against the petitioners and, therefore, no interference is warranted. On

these grounds, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

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

their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the

records with utmost circumspection.

16.The allegations contained in the FIR, even if accepted in their

entirety, disclose a matrimonial dispute which has been given a criminal

colour. The complaint primarily contains general and omnibus

allegations of cruelty, harassment and dowry demand without specifying

the date, time or manner in which the alleged acts were committed by

11

each of the petitioners. Except for broad and sweeping assertions, there

is no specific attribution of any overt act to any of the petitioners so as

to prima facie constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged. The

investigation has also culminated in filing of the charge-sheet without

collecting any independent material to substantiate the allegations

beyond the statements of interested witnesses. The continuation of

criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to permitting

the criminal process to be used as a weapon of harassment rather than

for securing the ends of justice.

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

Pradesh and another

5

, the Honb’ble Supreme Court has 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 and

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

abuse of judicial process.

18.In the matter of K. Subba Rao (supra) 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.

5 (2012) 10 SCC 741

12

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

Another

6

, it has been held by the Supreme Court relying upon the

principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal (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 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

6 2019 SCC OnLine SC 620

13

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, 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..…”

20.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.

21.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

14

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 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

15

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 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

16

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.

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

17

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 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

18

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.

22.Reverting to the facts of the present case, this Court has carefully

examined the allegations contained in the FIR, the statements recorded

during investigation and the material accompanying the charge-sheet. A

plain reading of the FIR would show that, except making broad

allegations that the petitioners demanded dowry and subjected

respondent No.2 to cruelty, no specific date, time, place or particular

incident has been attributed to any of the petitioners individually. The

allegations are substantially collective in nature and all the petitioners

have been implicated by making sweeping assertions without disclosing

the distinct role allegedly played by each of them. Even the statements

recorded during investigation do not substantially improve the

prosecution case so as to disclose the individual involvement of each

petitioner. The investigation has merely reproduced the allegations of

the complainant and her family members without collecting any

independent material capable of lending assurance to the prosecution

version.

19

23.It is also significant to note that petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the

sister-in-law of respondent No.2 and her husband, who are admittedly

residing separately at Bilaspur, whereas the matrimonial home of

respondent No.2 is situated at Korba. Except for the fact that they are

related to petitioner No.1, there is no material collected during

investigation indicating their participation in the alleged acts of cruelty or

dowry demand. Their implication appears to be founded merely upon

their relationship with the husband rather than upon any specific

allegation demonstrating their active involvement. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court has consistently deprecated such tendency of arraying every

member of the husband's family as an accused in matrimonial disputes

without there being concrete allegations against each of them.

24.This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the record itself

reflects that efforts for reconciliation were made between the parties on

more than one occasion and proceedings were also undertaken before

the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, though the same ultimately failed. The

petitioners had also lodged complaints before the police authorities

alleging that they had been threatened with false implication. While this

Court refrains from expressing any opinion on the correctness of those

complaints, the existence of such circumstances indicates that serious

matrimonial discord had already arisen between the parties much prior

to the lodging of the impugned FIR. In such a situation, the Court is

required to examine the allegations with greater care so as to ensure

that criminal law is not invoked as an instrument to settle matrimonial

scores.

20

25.The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is undoubtedly to be

exercised sparingly and with circumspection. At the same time, where

the allegations, even if taken at their face value, fail to disclose the

essential ingredients of the offences alleged or where continuation of

the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the

Court, this Court would be justified in exercising its inherent powers to

secure the ends of justice. The principles governing such exercise have

repeatedly been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal

(supra) and have consistently been reiterated in Geeta Mehrotra

(supra), Kahkashan Kausar (supra), Rashmi Chopra (supra), Payal

Sharma (supra) and, most recently, in Dara Lakshmi Narayan (supra).

26.In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case squarely

falls within the parameters laid down in the aforesaid decisions.

Permitting the criminal prosecution to continue on the basis of such

general and omnibus allegations, unsupported by specific material

demonstrating the individual role of each petitioner, would result in

misuse of the criminal process and would compel the petitioners to

undergo the rigours of a criminal trial despite the absence of a prima

facie case. Criminal law cannot be permitted to become a means of

exerting pressure in matrimonial disputes or of unnecessarily

prosecuting every member of the husband's family merely because of

their relationship with the husband.

27.Consequently, the present petition deserves to be and is

accordingly allowed. FIR No.41/2025 dated 15.01.2025 registered at

21

Police Station Janjgir (Police Chowki-Naila), District Janjgir-Champa

(C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 34 of the

IPC, the charge-sheet No.300/2025 dated 19.05.2025 filed on

10.06.2025, the order dated 10.06.2025 taking cognizance passed by

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir in Criminal Case

No.1146/2025, the order dated 04.09.2025 framing charges against the

petitioners and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom

are hereby quashed.

28.No order as to costs.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Brijmohan