Chattisgarh High Court
Rahul Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 July, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:33258-DB
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB
ANWAR
ANWAR
Date:
2025.07.17
NAFR
18:09:59
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1729 of 2025
1 - Rahul Agrawal S/o Prakashchand Agrawal Aged About 28 Years
(Husband) R/o- Makan No. 711, Opposite Bachpan School, Mangla,
Chowk P.S.- Civil Lines District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
2 - Prakashchand Agrawal S/o Mohanlal Agrawal Aged About 58 Years
(Father-In-Law) R/o- Makan No. 711, Opposite Bachpan School,
Mangla, Chowk P.S.- Civil Lines District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
3 - Nitu Agrawal W/o Prakashchand Agrawal Aged About 50 Years
(Mother-In-Law) R/o- Makan No. 711, Opposite Bachpan School,
Mangla, Chowk P.S.- Civil Lines District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- City Kotwali, District-
Raigarh (C.G.)
2 - Ruchi Agrawal W/o Rahul Agrawal Aged About 29 Years R/o Near
Gandhi Statue, Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) (Complainant)
2
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 2 : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate.
Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
16.07.2025
1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Agarwal learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer. for the State/respondent
No. 1 as well as Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 2.
2. Though, the matter was referred to mediation center, but it
appears that the mediation center has sent a report that though
the mediation was closed at this stage, but has submitted that if
the Court refer the matter again for mediation then one effort
should be made again to arrive at an amicable settlement
between the parties.
3. In view of above report and on a pointed query being made to
learned counsel for the parties whether they want this matter to be
referred again to mediation center they has stated that there is no
possibility of mediation, hence this Court proceeds to decide the
matter finally.
3
4. By this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioners
have prayed for the following relief(s):
“1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondent authorities to produce the entire
record pertaining to the case of the appellant.
2. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the impugned First Information report (F.I.R.)
dated 03.10.2024 in Crime No. 590/2024 registered by
police station City Kotwali District- Raigarh (C.G.) for
alleged commission of offences under Section 498-A,
406, 294, 506, 323, 34 of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the final report No. 80/2025 dated 29.03.2025
under Section 498-A, 406, 294, 506, 323, 34 of IPC and
Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the order dated taking cognizance dated
03.04.2025 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) under sections 4
498-A, 406, 294, 506, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code and
section 3 & 4 of Dowry Probation Act pending before
Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh District-
Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 297/2025.
E. That this Hon’ble court may further be pleased to
pass any other order in favour of Petitioner as it may
deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances
of the case with cost.”
5. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that
complainant/respondent no. 2 herein lodged written complaint on
03.10.2024 alleging that the marriage between complainant and
petitioner no. 1 is solemnized on 21.05.2023 alleging that after her
4
engagement the petitioner and his parents started demanding
expensive watches and other items worth lakhs which she and her
parents fulfilled. It is further alleged that complainant mother-in-
law (petitioner No. 3) started pressurizing her that she will not do
any job or engage her in any kind of service, after her marriage
her in -laws started torturing the complainant, the father and
mother of the petitioner no. 1 used to demand dowry and when
the complainant failed to fulfill their demands they used to abuse
her physically and mentally, thereafter, she lodged the FIR and on
the basis of that complaint an offence has been registered against
the petitioners under Section under sections 4 498-A, 406, 294,
506, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3 & 4 of Dowry
Probation Act.
6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that
petitioner No.1 is husband of respondent No.2. He further submits
that it is just a false allegation against the petitioner in order to
harass him along with his family so that his image will ruin in the
society. He further stated that in the FIR complainant has herself
stated that she went to her parents house when she was not well
and thereafter when she regained her health she went back to her
matrimonial house, but in this while she never stated anything to
her parents about the demand of dowry by her in-laws. He submit
that from the perusal of the statement as well as the written and
typed complaint lodged by the respondent no. 2, it is clear that
there is no direct or indirect evidence available on record to show
5
that petitioner has harass the complainant for the demand of
dowry and torture the complainant. Hence, the present
proceedings against the petitioner No.1 who is husband and
petitioners No.2, & 3 who are in-laws of respondent No.2 be
quashed.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents
submit that the matter was referred to the Mediation Center and
maintenance was granted to the wife and mediation between the
parties has failed. In view of above, it would be futile exercise for
sending the matter again before the Mediation Center.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents appended with petition.
9. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another1, the Supreme Court has held that casual
reference to the family member of the husband in FIR as 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.
10. In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana
represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and
others2 the Supreme Court delineated the duty of the criminal
1
(2012) 10 SCC 741
2
(2018) 14 SCC 452
6
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.
11. In the matter of Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another3, it has been held by the Supreme Court relying upon the
principle of law laid down in State of Haryana and others v.
Bhajan Lal and others4 that criminal proceedings can be allowed
to proceed only when a prima facie offence is disclosed and
further held that judicial process is a solemn proceeding which
cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of
oppression or harassment and the High Court should not hesitate
in exercising the jurisdiction to quash the proceedings if the
proceedings deserve to be quashed in line of parameters laid
down by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) and further
held that in absence of specific allegation regarding anyone of the
accused except common and general allegations against
everyone, no offence under Section 498A IPC is made out and
quashed the charges for offence under Section 498A of the IPC
being covered by category seven as enumerated in Bhajan Lal
(supra) by holding as under:-
3
2019 SCC OnLine SC 620
4
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
7“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, 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…..”
12. The Apex Court, in Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab & Another
{Cr.A. No. 4773/2024, decided on 26.11.2024} had, relying on the
decision in Geeta Mehrotra (supra), Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others {(2022) 6 SCC
8
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.
13. Very recently, the Apex Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayan &
Others v. State of Telangana & Another {Cr.A. No. 5199 of
2024, decided on 10.12.2024}, has observed as under:
“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 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
9Southern 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 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
10matrimonial 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.
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
11the 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 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
12
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 Apex Court quashed the FIR, the
charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending
before the learned trial Court.
14. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, material available on record, perusing the FIR in which no
specific allegations have been made and only bald and omnibus
allegations have been made against the petitioners/in-laws, we
are of the considered opinion that prima-facie no offence under
Section 498-A, 406, 294, 506, 323 and 34 of the IPC is made out
for prosecuting (petitioner No. 2 – Prakashchand Agrawal and
petitioner No.3 -Smt. Nitu Agrawal ) for the above-stated
offences.
15. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis,
the FIR No.590/2024 registered in the police station City Kotwali
District Raigarh (C.G.) for offence under Sections 498-A, 406,
294, 506, 323 and 34 of the IPC and all consequential
proceedings arising out of the above stated FIR is hereby
quashed to the extent of petitioner No.2- Prakashchand
Agrawal and petitioner No.3-Smt. Nitu Agrawal and
Prosecution against her husband petitioner No.1- Rahul
13
Agrawal shall continue. Concerned trial Court will decide criminal
case pending against petitioner No.1- Rahul Agrawal strictly in
accordance with law without being influenced by any of these
observations made hereinabove.
16. The petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. is allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Shoaib/Amardeep