[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Dayanand Sonkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 August, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:38336-DB
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL JHA
JHA Date:
2025.08.04
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
17:14:11
+0530
CRMP No. 2131 of 2025
1 - Dayanand Sonkar S/o Sonauram Sonkar Aged About 33 Years R/o House
No. E/81, C.S.E.B. Colony, Madwa, Janjgir, P.S.- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-
Champa C.G.
2 - Sonauram Sonkar S/o Late Bhikanlal Sonkar Aged About 58 Years R/o
Shivnagar Mathpuraina, P.S.- Tikrapara, District Raipur C.G., At Present
Beside Rishabh Garment Shop, Patewa, P.S. Patewa, District - Mahasamund
C.G.
3 - Parwati Sonkar W/o Sonauram Sonkar Aged About 54 Years R/o Shivnagar
Mathpuraina, P.S.- Tikrapara, District Raipur C.G., At Present Beside Rishabh
Garment Shop, Patewa, P.S. Patewa, District - Mahasamund C.G.
4 - Chanchal Sonkar D/o Sonauram Sonkar Aged About 28 Years R/o
Shivnagar Mathpuraina, P.S.- Tikrapara, District Raipur C.G., At Present
Beside Rishabh Garment Shop, Patewa, P.S. Patewa, District - Mahasamund
C.G.
... Applicants
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station-
Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh.
2 - Smt. Deepmala Sonkar W/o Dayanand Sonkar Aged About 26 Years R/o
E/81, C.S.E.B. Colony, Madwa, P.S.- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa C.G., At
Present R/o Behind Mahaveer Colony, Baijnath Para, Ward No. 38, P.S.- City
Kotwali, Durg, District - Durg, C.G. (Complainant)
Respondent(s)
2
(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)
For Applicants : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, PL
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate
Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
04/08/2025
1. Heard Mr. Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Hariom
Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr.
Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, the applicants have made following prayer:-
“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of
B.N.S.S may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash
the entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No.
1126/2024, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Janjgir, initiated under the Crime No. 170/2024
registered at Police Station Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa
dated 05.03.2024 and the Charge Sheet (Final Report)
bearing No. 298/2024 dated 13.07.2024 and also against the
charges framed against the petitioners vide order dated
13.11.2024 in Criminal Case No. 1126/2024 by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-
Champa whereby the charges U/s 294, 323, 506, 498-A, 34 of
I.P.C has been framed against the petitioners, in the interest of
justice. Any other order that may be deemed fit and just on the
fact and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed
in the interest of justice.”
3
3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that respondent no.
2 lodged a written report and alleged that she was given ill treatment by
her husband and in laws and demanded for dowry just after the marriage
and even at the time of marriage her father had given Rs.1,50,000/- cash
amount, Wagon R car along with gold and silver ornaments and other
articles to the husband, but still after the marriage, her in-laws were
always complained to her that whatever articles she brought from her
parental house are below standard and they were demand for more
money from her parental house, and due to that her husband started
beaten her and thereby she was tortured physically and mentally by the
husband and his family members. She further alleged that her husband
has illegal relationship with another woman and when complainant
objected about this then her husband and family members physically
tortured to her. On 04.03.2024 on the demand of dowry, her husband
utter filthy languages and committed Marpeet with her and due to that on
05/03/2024, she had lodged report against the husband and offence under
section 294, 506, 323 of IPC has been registered against the husband of
complainant at Police Station Janjgir. Thereafter, the complainant filed
written complaint before Mahila Thana, Bhilai and upon the written
complaint filed by complainant offence has been registered u/s – 294,
506, 323, 498-A r/w 34 of IPC against the applicants in the final report.
4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant No. 1 No.1 is
husband of respondent No.2, and applicants No. 2 & 3 are father-in-law
and mother-in-law of the complainant, respectively and applicant no. 4 is
4
sister-in-law of her. He would submit that initially at the of lodging the
first FIR, applicants No. 2 to 4 were not made accused, but later with
malafide intention, they have been made an accused in false and
frivolous case.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has
submitted that the matter was referred to the Mediation Center by this
Court, however, mediation between the parties has failed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended with petition.
7. 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.
8. 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 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
1
(2012) 10 SCC 741
2
(2018) 14 SCC 452
5
allegations, unless specific instances of their involvement in offences are
made out.
9. 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 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
3
2019 SCC OnLine SC 620
4
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
6Michigan, 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…..”
10. 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 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.
11. 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
7criminal 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 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
8over 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 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
9dissolution 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 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
10
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 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.
12. In the complaint so made, the complainant has only made omnibus and
general allegations against the applicants without being full particulars
about date and place that all the applicants including the husband treated
her with cruelty for not bringing dowry. There is no specific allegation
regarding anyone of the applicants except common and general
allegations against all them that they have demanded dowry.
13. 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 applicants, we are of the considered opinion that
11
prima-facie no offence under Section 498A/34 of the IPC is made out
for prosecuting applicant No. 2- Sonauram Sonkar, applicant No. 3-
Parwati Sonkar and applicant No. 3- Chanchal Sonkar for the above-
stated offences.
14. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, Criminal
Case No.1126/2024 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Janjgir (Chhattisgarh) arising out of Crime No.170/2024
registered at Police Station Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir is hereby
quashed to the extent of applicant No. 2- Sonauram Sonkar, applicant
No. 3- Parwati Sonkar and applicant No. 3- Chanchal Sonkar.
Prosecution against her husband applicant No.1- Dayanand Sonkar
shall continue. Concerned trial Court will decide criminal case pending
against applicant No.1- Dayanand Sonkar strictly in accordance with
law without being influenced by any of these observations made
hereinabove.
15. The petition under Section 482 CrPC is allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Rahul/Gowri
[ad_2]
Source link