1

2026:CGHC:16073-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 376 of 2026

1 - Vinay Kumar Yadav S/o Jayprakash Yadav Aged About 34 Years R/o

Behind Tahrauli Vegetable Market, Near Jio Tower, P.S. Tahrauli, District

Jhansi (Uttar Pradesh)

2 - Devendra Kumari Yadav W/o Jayprakash Yadav Aged About 55

Years R/o Behind Tahrauli Vegetable Market, Near Jio Tower, P.S.

Tahrauli, District Jhansi (Uttar Pradesh)

3 - Jayprakash Yadav S/o Late Raghuveer Yadav Aged About 60 Years

R/o Behind Tahrauli Vegetable Market, Near Jio Tower, P.S. Tahrauli,

District Jhansi (Uttar Pradesh)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station

Mahila Thana, Durg District- Durg (C.G.)

2 - Smt. Deepika Yadav W/o Vinay Kumar Yadav Aged About 31 Years

R/o Behind Tpp School, Jai Stambh Chowk, Purena Bhilai 3, Police

Station Purani Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Advocate

For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Shubhangi Varshney, Advocate

2

Division Bench:

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

08 .04.2026

1.Heard Dr. Arham Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners as

well as Ms. Shubhangi Varshney, learned counsel for

Respondent No. 2 / complainant.

2.The present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed

by the petitioners with the following prayer :-

“(i). To kindly be pleased to quash the FIR dated 15-09-

2025 bearing Crime No. 59/2025 registered at P.S. Mahila

Thana, District Durg (C.G) against the petitioners, for the

offences under section 498-A, 34 of the IPC

(ii). To kindly be pleased to quash the impugned final

report bearing no. 66/2025 dated 30-10-2025 filed against

the petitioners under sections 498-A, 34 of the IPC in

Crime No. 59/2025 (Annexure P-1)

(iii)To kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order

dated 31-10-2025 (Annexure P-2) whereby the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G) has taken

cognizance of the impugned chargesheet and registered

the impugned criminal proceedings as Criminal Case No.

RCC/34782/2025

(iv). of To kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal

the Criminal Case No. proceedings RCC/34782/2025

pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Durg (C.G)

3

(v). And to kindly grant any other relief to the petitioners as

this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and

circumstances of the present case”

3.The present case arises out of matrimonial dispute between

Petitioner No.1 (husband) and Respondent No.2 (wife), who were

married on 22.02.2015 as per Hindu rites. As per the prosecution

case, the respondent No.2 stayed at the matrimonial home only

for a short period and thereafter resided mostly at her parental

home to complete her education from 2015 to 2019, visiting

occasionally. She later took up employment as a Guest Teacher at

Chhatarpur and subsequently shifted to Datia, where she resided

separately, while the petitioner could only stay with her

intermittently due to his family obligations. Differences arose

between the parties on account of living arrangements, and it is

alleged that in April 2022, she left the matrimonial home with

jewellery and valuables and refused to return despite

reconciliation efforts. Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 filed a

divorce petition on 16.05.2025, which is pending, and thereafter

the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 23.07.2025, leading to

registration of FIR dated 15.09.2025 under Sections 498-A and 34

IPC and filing of the impugned charge-sheet.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR

and consequential proceedings are nothing but a gross abuse of

the process of law, as the same have been initiated with mala fide

intent after the petitioner No.1 filed a petition under Section 13 of

the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage. A bare

4

perusal of the FIR would reveal that the respondent No.2 never

resided at her matrimonial home for any substantial period and

lived separately for most of the marriage due to her educational

and professional pursuits, thereby rendering the allegations of

cruelty inherently improbable. The FIR is conspicuously silent on

any specific instances of physical or mental harassment and

contains only vague, omnibus allegations, particularly against the

aged parents (petitioner Nos.2 and 3), without attributing any

specific role to them. It is further submitted that the allegations are

concocted, contradictory to admitted facts, and have been levelled

only to harass and pressurize the petitioners.

5. He further submitted that in compliance of the Court’s order dated

05.02.2026 the present case is referred to the mediation centre,

but the mediation is failed between them.

6.He would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the

matters of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar

Pradesh and another

1

, Preeti Gupta and another v. State of

Jharkhand and another

2

, Swapnil v. State of Madhya

Pradesh

3

, Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and

Another

4

(Para-24), Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of

Uttar Pradesh and Another

5

, Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam

1(2012) 10 SCC 741

2(2010) 7 SCC 667

3(2014) 13 SCC 567

42019 SCC OnLine SC 620

5(2018) 10 SCC 472

5

and others v. State of Bihar and others

6

and Abhishek v. State

of Madhya Pradesh

7

.

7.Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, would submit

that That, it is most respectfully submitted on behalf of the

complainant that the present FIR clearly discloses the commission

of cognizable offences, particularly under Section 498-A of the

Indian Penal Code, as the complainant has specifically narrated

continuous acts of cruelty, harassment, and physical as well as

mental torture inflicted upon her by the husband and his family

members. It is submitted that despite sufficient dowry being given

at the time of marriage, the complainant was subjected to

persistent taunts, demands for additional money, physical assault,

and humiliation on trivial domestic issues, including being called

infertile and being deprived of basic necessities. The complainant

was also wrongfully confined, financially neglected, and

repeatedly pressured to bring money from her parental home,

which clearly establishes a pattern of cruelty. It is further

submitted that all attempts at reconciliation failed due to the non-

cooperative attitude of the accused persons, and only thereafter

the complainant was constrained to approach the authorities. At

this stage, the allegations made in the FIR are detailed, specific,

and prima facie sufficient to proceed against the accused

persons, and therefore, the present proceedings do not warrant

any interference or quashing.

6(2022) 6 SCC 599

72023 SCC OnLine SC 1083

6

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

their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through

the records with utmost circumspection.

9.At the outset, it would be appropriate to consider the scope of

interference in charge-sheet filed by the police against accused in

extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS.

10.In the matter of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special

Judicial Magistrate and others

8

, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

held that the accused can approach the High Court either under

Section 528 of BNSS or under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India to have the proceeding quashed against him when the

complaint does not make out any case against him.

11.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana

and others v. Bhajan Lal and others

9

laid down the principles of

law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article

226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information

report and it has been held that such power can be exercised

either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to

secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their

Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under

Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC/ 528 of

B.N.S.S should be exercised, which are as under: -

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the

various relevant provisions of the Code under

8(1998) 5 SCC 749

91992 Supp (1) SCC 335

7

Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated

by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the

exercise of the extraordinary power under Article

226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the

Code which we have extracted and reproduced

above, we give the following categories of cases by

way of illustration wherein such power could be

exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of

any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,

though it may not be possible to lay down any

precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised

and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to

give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases

wherein such power should be exercised.

(1)Where the allegations made in the first

information report or the complaint, even if

they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie

constitute any offence or make out a case

against the accused.

(2)Where the allegations in the first

information report and other materials, if any,

accompanying the FIR do not disclose a

cognizable offence, justifying an investigation

by police officers under Section 156(1) of the

Code except under an order of a Magistrate

within the purview of Section 155(2) of the

Code.

(3)Where the uncontroverted allegations

made in the FIR or complaint and the

evidence collected in support of the same do

not disclose the commission of any offence

and make out a case against the accused.

(4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not

constitute a cognizable offence but constitute

only a non-cognizable offence, no

investigation is permitted by a police officer

without an order of a Magistrate as

contemplated under Section 155(2) of the

Code.

(5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or

complaint are so absurd and inherently

improbable on the basis of which no prudent

8

person can ever reach a just conclusion that

there is sufficient ground for proceeding

against the accused.

(6)Where there is an express legal bar

engrafted in any of the provisions of the

Code or the concerned Act (under which

criminal proceeding is a instituted) to the

institution and continuance of the

proceedings and/or where there is a specific

provision in the Code or the concerned Act,

providing efficacious redress for the

grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the

proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on

the accused and with a view to spite him due

to private and personal grudge.

103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that

the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should

be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection

and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the

court will not be justified in embarking upon an

enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or

otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the

complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent

powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the

court to act according to its whim or caprice."

12.The principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) has

been followed recently by the Supreme Court in the matters of

Google India Private Limited v. Visaka Industries

10

, Ahmad Ali

Quraishi and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another

11

and Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar. v. State of Maharashtra

and others

12

". The Supreme Court in Google India Private

Limited (supra), explained the scope of dictum of Bhajan Lal's

10(2020) 4 SCC 162

11(2020) 13 SCC 435

12(2019) 18 SCC 191

9

case (supra) that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding be

exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and "that too in

the rarest of rare cases" as indicated in paragraph 103 therein of

the report.

13.Having noticed the scope of interference by this Court in the

petition relating to quashment of FIR/charge-sheet, reverting to

the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that in the impugned

charge-sheet, four petitioners have been charged for offences

under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC.

14.Chapter XXA of the IPC deals with offence of cruelty by husband

or relatives of husband. Section 498A of the IPC defines the

offence of cruelty as under:-

"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman

subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the

husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,

subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with

imprisonment for a term which may extend to three

years and shall also be liable to fine.

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

means-

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is

likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause

grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether

mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is

with a view to coercing her or any person related to her

to meet any unlawful demand for any property or

valuable security or is on account of failure by her or

any person related to her to meet such demand."

10

15.A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in

order to establish offence under Section 498A of the IPC, the

prosecution must establish,

(i) That, woman must be married:

(ii) She has been subjected to cruelty or harassment

and

(iii) Such cruelty or harassment must have been

shown either by husband of the woman or by relative

of her husband.

16.The word 'cruelty' within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC

has been explained in Explanation appended to Section 498A of

the IPC. It consists of two clauses namely clause (a) and clause

(b). To attract Section 498A of the IPC, it must be established that

cruelty or harassment to the wife to coerce her or cause bodily

injury to herself or to commit suicide or the harassment was to

compel her to fulfill illegal demand for dowry. It is not every type of

harassment or cruelty that would attract Section 498A of the IPC.

Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC contemplates

harassment of woman to coerce or any relation of her to meet any

unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. The

complainant if wants to come within the ambit of Explanation (b)

to Section 498A of the IPC, she can succeed if it is proved that

there was an unlawful demand by the husband or any of his

relatives with respect to money or of some valuable security.

11

17.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priya Vrat Singh

and others v. Shyam Ji Sahai

13

considered the issue of delay in

lodging the complaint as well as role that has been ascribed to the

accused therein and quashed the complaint holding the delay of

two years in lodging FIR to be fatal and further held that no role

has been ascribed to the petitioner/accused therein. It was

observed as under:-

"8. Further it is pointed out that the allegation of alleged

demand for dowry was made for the first time in

December, 1994. In the complaint filed, the allegation is

that the dowry torture was made some times in 1992. It

has not been explained as to why for more than two

years no action was taken.

9. Further, it appears that in the complaint petition. apart

from the husband, the mother of the husband, the

subsequently married wife, husband's mother's sister,

husband's brother in law and Sunita's father were

impleaded as party. No role has been specifically

ascribed to anybody except the husband and that too of

a dowry demand in February 1993 when the complaint

was filed on 6.12.1994 i.e. nearly after 22 months. It is

to be noted that in spite of service of notice, none has

appeared on behalf of Respondent No.1."

18.Similarly, in the matter of Sunder Babu and others v. State of

Tamil Nadu

14

delay in filing complaint against accused therein

was taken note of by their Lordships of the Supreme Court

holding the case to be covered by Category Seven of para-102

highlighted in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), the prosecution for

13(2008) 8 SCC 232

14(2009) 14 SCC 244

12

offence under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act was quashed.

19.Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that casual reference to the family member of

the husband in FIR as co-accused particularly when there is no

specific allegation and complaint did not disclose their active

involvement. It was held that cognizance of matter against them

for offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 304- B of the

IPC would not be justified as cognizance would result in abuse of

judicial process.

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

represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and

others

15

their Lordships of the Supreme Court delineated the duty

of the criminal Courts while proceeding against relatives of

victim's husband and held that the Court should be careful in

proceeding against distant relatives in crime pertaining to

matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and further held that

relatives of husband should not be roped in on the basis of

omnibus allegations, unless specific instances of their

involvement in offences are made out.

21.Recently, in the matter of Rashmi Chopra (supra) it has been

held by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon

the principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) that

15(2018) 14 SCC 452

13

criminal proceedings can be allowed to proceed only when a

prima facie offence is disclosed and further held that judicial

process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be

converted into an instrument of oppression or harassment and the

High Court should not hesitate in exercising the jurisdiction to

quash the proceedings if the proceedings deserve to be quashed

in line of parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Bhajan Lal's case (supra) and further held that in absence of

specific allegation regarding anyone of the accused except

common and general allegations against everyone, no offence

under Section 498A IPC is made out and quashed the charges for

offence under Section 498A of the IPC being covered by category

seven as enumerated in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) by holding as

under:-

"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.

14

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....."

22.Having noticed the legal position qua quashing the FIR and

charge-sheet, the question would be whether taking the contents

of the FIR and charge-sheet as it is, offence under Section 498-

A/34 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners?

23.In the matter of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others

Vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2022(6) SCC 599, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has stated as under:-

"10. Having perused the relevant facts and

contentions made by the appellants and

respondents, in our considered opinion, the

foremost issue which requires determination

in the instant case is whether allegations

made against the appellants in-laws are in

the nature of general omnibus allegations

and therefore liable to be quashed.?

11. Before we delve into greater detail on

the nature and content of allegations made,

it becomes pertinent to mention that

incorporation of section 498-A of IPC was

aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon

a woman by her husband and her in-laws,

by facilitating rapid State intervention.

However, it is equally true, that in recent

times, matrimonial litigation in the country

has also increased significantly and there is

a greater disaffection and friction

15

surrounding the institution of marriage, now,

more than ever. This has resulted in an

increased tendency to employ provisions

such as 498-A IPC as instruments to settle

personal scores against the husband and

his relatives.

12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh

Sharma Vs. State of U.P. , has observed:-

“14. Section 498-A was inserted in the

statute with the laudable object of

punishing cruelty at the hands of husband

or his relatives against a wife particularly

when such cruelty had potential to result

in suicide or murder of a woman as

mentioned in the statement of Objects

and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The

expression 'cruelty' in Section 498-A

covers conduct which may drive the

woman to commit suicide or cause grave

injury (mental or physical) or danger to life

or harassment with a view to coerce her

to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of

serious concern that large number of

cases continue to be filed under Section

498-A alleging harassment of married

women. We have already referred to

some of the statistics from the Crime

Records Bureau. This Court had earlier

noticed the fact that most of such

complaints are filed in the heat of the

moment over trivial issues. Many of such

complaints are not bona fide. At the time

of filing of the complaint, implications and

consequences are not visualized. At times

such complaints lead to uncalled for

harassment not only to the accused but

also to the complainant. Uncalled for

arrest may ruin the chances of

settlement."

16

13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of

this court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of

Bihar, it was also observed;

“4. There is a phenomenal increase in

matrimonial disputes in recent years. The

institution of marriage is greatly revered in

this country. Section 498-A IPC was

introduced with avowed object to combat

the menace of harassment to a woman at

the hands of her husband and his

relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC

is a cognizable and non- bailable offence

has lent it a dubious place of pride

amongst the provisions that are used as

weapons rather than shield by disgruntled

wives. The simplest way to harass is to

get the husband and his relatives arrested

under this provision. In a quite number of

cases, bed- ridden grand- fathers and

grand-mothers of the husbands, their

sisters living abroad for decades are

arrested.”

14.Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State

of Jharkhand, it has also been observed:-

“32. It is a matter of common experience

that most of these complaints under

section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of

the moment over trivial issues without

proper deliberations. We come across a

large number of such complaints which

are not even bona fide and are filed with

oblique motive. At the same time, rapid

increase in the number of genuine cases

of dowry harassment are also a matter of

serious concern.

33. The learned members of the Bar have

enormous social responsibility and

obligation to ensure that the social fiber of

family life is not ruined or demolished.

They must ensure that exaggerated

versions of small incidents should not be

17

reflected in the criminal complaints.

Majority of the complaints are filed either

on their advice or with their concurrence.

The learned members of the Bar who

belong to a noble profession must

maintain its noble traditions and should

treat every complaint under section 498-A

as a basic human problem and must

make serious endeavour to help the

parties in arriving at an amicable

resolution of that human problem. They

must discharge their duties to the best of

their abilities to ensure that social fiber,

peace and tranquility of the society

remains intact. The members of the Bar

should also ensure that one complaint

should not lead to multiple cases.

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of

the complaint the implications and

consequences are not properly visualized

by the complainant that such complaint

can lead to insurmountable harassment,

agony and pain to the complainant,

accused and his close relations.

35. The ultimate object of justice is to find

out the truth and punish the guilty and

protect the innocent. To find out the truth

is a herculean task in majority of these

complaints. The tendency of implicating

husband and all his immediate relations is

also not uncommon. At times, even after

the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult

to ascertain the real truth. The courts have

to be extremely careful and cautious in

dealing with these complaints and must

take pragmatic realities into consideration

while dealing with matrimonial cases. The

allegations of harassment of husband's

close relations who had been living in

different cities and never visited or rarely

visited the place where the complainant

resided would have an entirely different

18

complexion. The allegations of the

complaint are required to be scrutinized

with great care and circumspection.

36. Experience reveals that long and

protracted criminal trials lead to rancour,

acrimony and bitterness in the relationship

amongst the parties. It is also a matter of

common knowledge that in cases filed by

the complainant if the husband or the

husband's relations had to remain in jail

even for a few days, it would ruin the

chances of amicable settlement

altogether. The process of suffering is

extremely long and painful.”

15. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of

UP, it was observed:-

“21. It would be relevant at this stage to

take note of an apt observation of this

Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao

vs. L.H.V. Prasad wherein also in a

matrimonial dispute, this Court had held

that the High Court should have quashed

the complaint arising out of a matrimonial

dispute wherein all family members had

been roped into the matrimonial litigation

which was quashed and set aside. Their

Lordships observed therein with which we

entirely agree that:

"12..... “there has been an outburst of

matrimonial dispute in recent times.

Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main

purpose of which is to enable the

young couple to settle down in life and

live peacefully. But little matrimonial

skirmishes suddenly erupt which often

assume serious proportions resulting in

heinous crimes in which elders of the

family are also involved with the result

that those who could have counselled

and brought about rapprochement are

rendered helpless on their being

19

arrayed as accused in the criminal

case. There are many reasons which

need not be mentioned here for not

encouraging matrimonial litigation so

that the parties may ponder over their

defaults and terminate the disputes

amicably by mutual agreement instead

of fighting it out in a court of law where

it takes years and years to conclude

and in that process the parties lose

their “young” days in chasing their

cases in different courts.”

The view taken by the judges in this

matter was that the courts would not

encourage such disputes.”

16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State

of Telangana, it was also observed that:-

"6......The Courts should be careful in

proceeding against the distant relatives in

crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes

and dowry deaths. The relatives of the

husband should not be roped in on the

basis of omnibus allegations unless

specific instances of their involvement in

the crime are made out.”

17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly

demonstrate that this court has at numerous

instances expressed concern over the

misuse of section 498-A IPC and the

increased tendency of implicating relatives

of the husband in matrimonial disputes,

without analysing the long term ramifications

of a trial on the complainant as well as the

accused. It is further manifest from the said

judgments that false implication by way of

general omnibus allegations made in the

course of matrimonial dispute, if left

unchecked would result in misuse of the

process of law. Therefore, this court by way

of its judgments has warned the courts from

proceeding against the relatives and in-laws

20

of the husband when no prima facie case is

made out against them.

18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a

perusal of the contents of the FIR dated

01.04.19, it is revealed that general

allegations are levelled against the

appellants. The complainant alleged that "all

accused harassed herm mentally and

threatened her of terminating her

pregnancy". Furthermore, no specific and

distinct allegations have been made against

either of the appellants herein, i.e., none of

the appellants have been attributed any

specific role in furtherance of the general

allegations made against them. This simply

leads to a situation wherein one fails to

ascertain the role played by10 each accused

in furtherance of the offence. The allegations

are therefore, general and omnibus and can

at best be said to have been made out on

account of small skirmishes. Insofar as

husband is concerned, since he has not

appealed against the order of the High court,

we have not examined the veracity of

allegations made against him. However, as

far as the Appellants are concerned, the

allegations made against them being

general and omnibus, do not warrant

prosecution."

24.Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of

“Charul Shukla V. State of UP and others” reported in 2026

SCC OnLine SC 476” that:-

22. Furthermore, with respect to the allegations against

the sister-in -law regarding the incitement of the

complainant's husband in relation to the alleged extra-

marital affair, the prosecution has failed to provide any

specific detail and has not been able to elaborate upon

21

the nature of the relationship or how those accusations

purportedly affected complainant's relationship with her

husband. It is apposite to note that upon the perusal of the

records of the case, nothing material has been put forth to

advance or substantiate the said allegations. Time and

again, this Court has observed that merely stating certain

vague and omnibus allegations without any cogent

material evidence to support the same should not become

a fillip to jump-start the criminal machinery of the State. At

this juncture, we find it appropriate to quote the

observations of this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v.

State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 which is extracted

as under:

"27. A mere reference to the names of family

members in a criminal case arising out of a

matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations in

the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of

judicial experiencee 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..…

xxx

30. 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 Page

22

22 of 26 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.

31. 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

23

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."

25.Reverting to the facts of the present case, it transpires from the

FIR that she made omnibus allegation against the accused

persons that after 15 days of marriage, the accused persons

started taunting her that they have not get the dowry articles of

good quality. They also scolded her for not preparing the proper

food and when she informed her parents, they also tried to

convince her in-laws but they sent her back on 03.09.2023 to her

parents house. She made a complaint to Mahila Police Station,

Bhilai but the accused persons had not appeared in counseling

and thereafter, she lodged the report. She alleged that the act of

cruelty starts after 15 days of her marriage and she came back to

her parents house on 03.09.2023, yet the report has been lodged

on 23.07.2025 and thereafter, the FIR has been registered on

15.09.2025. Lodging of the report on 23.07.2025 after such a

belated stage would also goes against her. There is no specific

incident alleged by the Respondent No. 2/ complainant with

respect to cruelty. From the material available in the charge-sheet

as well as in view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie

no offence under Section 498 A of IPC is made out for

prosecuting petitioner Nos. 2 Devendra Kumari Yadav, petitioner

24

No. 3 Jayprakash Yadav for the above-stated offences and the

prosecution against them for the aforesaid offence is covered by

Category 1, 3 & 7 of para-102 of the judgment rendered by the

Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) and as such, liable

to be quashed.

26.As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis

and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, and also the

fact that the mediation between the parties has failed, FIR dated

15.09.2026 filed in Crime No.59/2025 of Mahila Thana, Durg, CG

against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A, /34 of

IPC and the final report bearing no. 66/2025 dated 30.10.2025

and the criminal proceeding of the Criminal Case No.

RCC/34782/2025 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Durg filed against the petitioners is hereby quashed.

27.The petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. is allowed to the extent

indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

sagrika